The subpoena last april. We will show you the oral argument from july. It is a little more than an hour. , may it please the court indulge me for a moment. Are counsels. Questions. To get i wanted to start out by saying i dont get to say this very is one of and this those instances when the District Courts opinion is extremely strong, especially when combined with the Supreme Court, and it answers a lot of the arguments. The District Courts statement that there is deference to congress here is wrong. Those come from cases where the president is not a party. Here we have a dispute between two equal coordinates. Keep anyould we different . Why wouldnt we look objectively as a court to determine if congress is pursuing a legitimate i dont think it would change the standard and it does not change because of the behavior. Cases thathe articulate the deferential tondard our cases which go two branches of government. Why. T dont understand dont understand why we would adopt the standard peer
I did just want to start out by saying, i dont get to say this very often, and this is one of those instances where the District Courts opinion is extreme a strong, especially when combined with the Supreme Courts position, where they recognize answers a lot of the arguments they have made. [inaudible] hold that thought then. The District Courts statement we dont sell efforts to congress is wrong because those come from cases where the president is not a party. Here, we have a dispute between two equal branches. We why wouldnt we look objectively, as a court, to determine whether congress is, in fact, pursuing legitimate legislative objective . Because your honor, i dont think you would change your standard this up in court has set in a number of cases does not change just because the subpoena is directed all of thecases, cases that articulate the that formed cases branches of government. Understand why wed adopt that. Why we wouldstand adopt the standard. That jumped out at me as i re
For most, in many cases really helps, statutes, house signals authority reaches that office. Ournd, whether constitutional gaps there are constitutional gaps raises questions. Did you state the house itself has the power . Power to issue a subpoena, the house itself . Mr. Consovoy not the constitutional power. The house itself because your argument to me sounded like it was all about the delegation of the committee not being explicit. I have no i find no argument that the house itself he said that house had to be explicit that it was giving what he had to the committee. Mr. Consovoy im sorry, im not getting the house rules state j. Millett including subpoena power . The vast majority, which is whether a subpoena is constitutional. Your first just on constitutional argument given your issues about legislative just to understand, i am understanding trying to understand what your argument is. The house itself would issue a subpoena and we would be over on the rest of the brief oral argume
[inaudible] reform of the United States house of representatives. Good morning. May it please the court [inaudible] private financial records, foremost, in many cases, have rules to name president. [inaudible] do you dispute that the House Authority . But it has the power to issue a subpoena, the house itself . Not the constitutional power. The house itself. Your argument sounded to me all about the delegations of the committee not being explicit. The house itself did not have you just said the house had to be explicit that it was giving to the committee. Right. Im sorry [inaudible] could have subpoena power. [inaudible] yeah. Im sorry. On your first nonconstitutional argument, but set aside, im taking, given your issues about within the legislative, but just to understand im trying to understand your statement and that is, yes, the house itself could issue the subpoena and would be over so the house has it and whether it gave it to the committee . Correct. [inaudible] whether the Comm
Versus mazars usa llp and committees on oversight and reform of the United States house of representatives. Mr. Consovoy for the appellants, mr. Leonard for the appellee. Good morning. Good morning. Mr. Consovoy as both the Supreme Court and this court the courts must first answer whether the committee has statutory [indiscernable]. In this case, and for the reason set forth in this courts opinion [indiscernable]. The language in the house rules is not jurisdiction to personally subpoena the president for his private financial records. Foremost, in many cases, and as the office has held, statutes, and here house rules must name the president. There must be a clear statement before their authority may reach that office. Second, as in the Supreme Courts decision, where there are constitutional doubts, the committees authority should be read narrowly not to trigger those serious questions. J. Millett do you dispute that the house itself has this power . Mr. Consovoy it has the statuatory