UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-cv-3790 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell ADAM B. SCHIFF, Chairman, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. asserts that the common-law right of access requires defendants, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI” or “Committee”) and Adam B. Schiff, in his capacity as HPSCI’s Chairman, to disclose subpoenas issued in September 2019, and associated responses received, by HPSCI to telecommunications providers as part of the Committee’s impeachment inquiry into activities of President Donald J. Trump. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. According to plaintiff, defendants’ failure to produce, upon request, the requested subpoenas and responses violates the common-law right of public access, id. ¶ 14, which gives “members of the public . . . the right to examine government records when the public interest in disclosure is greater than that in government secrecy,” id. ¶ 7. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 9, arguing both that sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction here and that no valid claim is presented, Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 3–4, ECF No. 9-1. For the reasons explained below, 1 defendants’ motion is granted for lack of jurisdiction, requiring dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi “announced that the House of Representatives would continue with its impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump.” Defs.’ Mem. at 1–2 (citing Press Release, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019), available at https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/92419- 0). Roughly one month later, on October 31, 2019, the House adopted House Resolution 660, “which (i) established the procedures for HPSCI to continue its ongoing investigation in open hearings, (ii) authorized public release of deposition transcripts, (iii) required HPSCI to prepare and issue a report and make recommendations to the Committee on the Judiciary, and (iv) provided additional procedures in furtherance of the impeachment inquiry, including for the Committee on the Judiciary.” Id. at 2 (citing H.R. 660, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. REP. NO. 116- 266, at 2 (2019)). “As part of its impeachment investigation, . . . HPSCI issued subpoenas to telecommunications providers for certain records,” and obtained in response information that “furthered [HPSCI’s] investigation by establishing connections—specifically, telephone contacts—between relevant individuals at key points in time.” Id. Some of this information was subsequently made public by HPSCI in a published report. See HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 116TH CONG., THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT (Dec. 2019), available at https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump- ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf. According to plaintiff, the subscribers of the telephone records subject to the subpoenas at issue include “ranking Intelligence Committee Republican Devin Nunes, President Donald J. 2 Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, journalist John Solomon, the White House, and others.” Pl.’s Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 1, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals