Constitutional law attorney Paul Kamenar has taken Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller to a federal court of appeals, challenging Mueller’s legitimacy and powers as unconstitutional and arguing that Mueller acts like a “U.S. Attorney-at-large or a super U.S. Attorney with almost unlimited resources.” This is the only case to challenge the legitimacy of Mueller’s appointment in a court of appeals.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a former part-time aide to Roger Stone, who was subpoenaed this summer by Mueller to testify against Stone in front of a grand jury. Mueller’s team has spent the past year and a half investigating the “Russian collusion” of Trump’s campaign and has brought criminal charges against numerous individuals, albeit none for “Russian collusion.” Mueller’s reliance on Special Counsel powers to make legal demands of the aide have presented a unique legal opportunity for Kamenar to challenge the arguably illegal powers … Read More ➡
On September 11, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Miller is declining to honor a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury and is challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment.
Miller lost at the District Court level, allowing his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place in October. In his brief, Kamenar makes a compelling case that Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be ruled invalid. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center, and its supporters around the country.
In an op-ed in The Hill, Law Professor Steven Calabresi says that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell erred in upholding the constitutionality of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Her decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefs were due yesterday and oral arguments will take place in October.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the case, is challenging Mueller’s constitutionality. Constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center, represents him. Here’s the op-ed:
In its decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, egged on by a power-crazy acting attorney general, reached two startling and alarming conclusions in order to uphold the legality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
The matter involved concerns the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which provides:
Late this afternoon, a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was filed seeking review of the contempt order issued against Andrew Miller for not appearing before Special Counsel Mueller’s grand jury on Friday, August 10, 2018. The appeal will seek review of the court’s decision and opinion of July 31, 2018, upholding the constitutionality of Special Counsel’s appointment.
“This case is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Paul Kamenar, Mr. Miller’s attorney, shortly after filing the appeal. To those, like Chris Cuomo of CNN who interviewed Mr. Kamenar on the case on Friday, August 10, who say this case is a distraction from Mueller’s investigation, Kamenar’s response is, “the constitution is not a distraction.” The Mueller challenge is being supported by NLPC.
Legal scholars Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman have weighed in on the increasingly relevant question of whether Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel is constitutional. I made my views known when I told the New York Times, “The founders feared exactly what we see in Mueller: a runaway federal official. We hope to see Mueller’s operation disbanded, once and for all.”
In an article titled “Is Robert Mueller an ‘Officer of the United States’ or an ‘Employee of the United States'”? appearing on the Lawfare website, Tillman and Blackman examine a number of arguments and offer some of their own:
Recent debates over the constitutionality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel turn on whether he is a principal or inferior “officer of the United States.” Steven Calabresi contends that Mueller is in fact a principal officer, who, as a result, must be nominated by the president, and … Read More ➡
The question of whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is constitutional is examined by George Will in his latest column:
The president, who might not be fully acquainted with the pertinent Supreme Court case law, says the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel was unconstitutional. The president’s opinion, because it is his, is prima facie evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is, however, not sufficient evidence. Consider the debate between two serious people who have immersed themselves in the history of the appointments clause, which says:
“[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the … Read More ➡