## Facts

- The House Committee on the Judiciary investigated the 2006 resignation/dismissal of nine U.S. Attorneys amid concerns about improper partisan influence.
- The Committee issued subpoenas (June 13, 2007) to:
  - Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, to appear and testify and to produce documents.
  - Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff (as records custodian), to produce responsive documents and provide a privilege log for withheld materials.
- President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege and directed Miers not to appear and Bolten not to produce documents or a privilege log.
- Miers did not appear; Bolten produced no documents and no privilege log.
- The House held Miers and Bolten in contempt (Feb. 14, 2008) and authorized a civil enforcement suit.
- The Committee sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance, or at minimum to require Miers to appear and assert privilege question-by-question and require Bolten to provide a privilege log.

## Issues

1. Whether the Committee had Article III standing to seek judicial enforcement of congressional subpoenas against executive-branch officials.
2. Whether federal law and equitable authority supplied a cause of action for the Committee to sue to enforce the subpoenas.
3. Whether the dispute presented a nonjusticiable political question or otherwise warranted dismissal on separation-of-powers grounds.
4. Whether the court should decline to act as a matter of equitable discretion.
5. Whether a former senior presidential adviser is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.
6. Whether the Executive may refuse to produce non-privileged responsive documents and refuse to provide a privilege log for materials withheld on executive-privilege grounds.

## Decision

- Denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding the Committee had standing, an enforceable basis for relief, and presented a justiciable subpoena-enforcement dispute.
- Granted partial summary judgment for the Committee on the key merits questions.
- Declared that Miers was not absolutely immune from compelled congressional process and must appear and testify pursuant to the subpoena, subject to asserting executive privilege in response to specific questions.
- Ordered production of all non-privileged responsive documents and required a specific description/privilege log for any documents withheld based on executive privilege.
- Declined to adjudicate the validity of any particular privilege assertion as to specific documents or communications.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may resolve interbranch disputes when the controversy requires a traditional judicial function such as subpoena enforcement.
- An institutional injury to Congress’s investigative and subpoena power can satisfy Article III standing when noncompliance impairs information-gathering and judicial relief would redress that injury.
- A civil enforcement action may proceed under general federal-question jurisdiction and the court’s equitable authority to provide effective relief, without a bespoke statute expressly authorizing House-versus-Executive subpoena suits.
- The political question doctrine does not bar adjudication merely because the parties are coordinate branches; courts may determine the legal effect of subpoenas and asserted defenses.
- Senior presidential advisers do not possess absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony; executive privilege is distinct, qualified, and must be asserted specifically.
- Executive privilege does not justify blanket refusal to appear or to identify withheld documents; a privilege log is an appropriate mechanism to permit evaluation of privilege claims while protecting privileged content.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas by rejecting a categorical claim that a former White House Counsel could refuse to appear, requiring testimony subject to question-by-question privilege assertions, and compelling production of non-privileged documents along with a privilege log for withheld materials.


Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008)