The delivery of Robert Mueller’s report to Attorney General William Barr does not mean the end of the constitutional challenge to the Special Counsel’s authority by Andrew Miller, who has been subpoenaed as a witness in the investigation.
Paul Kamenar, who represents Miller, commented, “Several days ago the Special Counsel notified us that they are still interested in having Andrew Miller testify before the grand jury regarding Roger Stone whose case is also being handled by the local U.S. Attorney.
We are pursuing further judicial review of our challenge to Mueller’s constitutional authority to issue his subpoena last June despite today’s action that indicates the Special Counsel has terminated his investigation.
Thus, it is not clear at this point whether any further request for Mr. Miller’s testimony will come from the U.S. Attorney’s office should we not prevail, or whether they will decide his testimony is no longer needed.”
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to the authority of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a case brought by Andrew Miller, a former aide to Roger Stone during the 2016 Republican Convention who challenged a subpoena to appear before the grand jury last June.
“We are disappointed with the decision and will be considering future legal action, whether before the full court of appeals or the Supreme Court,” said Paul Kamenar, attorney for Mr. Miller. “The fact that the court took more than three months to decide this appeal after oral argument compared to the three days it took in December to decide another challenge to a Mueller subpoena issued to an unnamed foreign corporation, demonstrates that this was a serious and substantial challenge,” Kamenar added.
The U.S. Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the constitutional challenge to Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Andrew Miller. The case was argued on November 8. We had expected a decision much sooner and certainly by now.
So what is going on? The short answer is that we do not know. But the delay has led to speculation by reporters who are covering the story. On Monday Josh Gerstein wrote this in Politico:
A wait of more than three months for the first appeals court ruling on the legality of special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment is fueling suspicion among court watchers that the decision might contain an unwelcome surprise for Mueller’s team.
We have never predicted that Miller would win at this level, the second highest court in the land. Miller’s attorney, Paul Kamenar, has said that the case may reach the Supreme Court. A loss could … Read More ➡ “‘Unwelcome Surprise’ for Mueller?”
The dramatic, predawn arrest of Roger Stone demonstrates how Robert Mueller’s investigation has devolved into political theater. Helmets and flak vests, really, were they afraid Roger would hurl martini glasses at them? Or maybe Roger would come out blazing with his tennis racket? This show of force — with CNN’s camera’s conveniently present — was meant to suggest that Stone was some kind of dangerous criminal.
But the indictment itself is proof positive that Mueller probe has come up empty. Finding Stone’s role in the release of DNC emails by WikiLeaks was always Mueller’s Plan B. If he could not directly implicate Trump in Russian campaign interference, he could at least link a prominent Trump supporter to the email release, but he hasn’t even been able to do that. Mueller poured an enormous amount of time and resources into the pursuit of Stone, but it turned out to be a … Read More ➡ “Stone Arrest is Mueller’s Political Theater; No Decision Yet on Constitutional Challenge”
As of today, the U.S. Court of Appeals has not ruled on the constitutional challenge to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The case was argued on November 8 before a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Judith W. Rogers, Karen Henderson and Sri Srinivasan.
That hearing, which lasted well over an hour, took place against the backdrop of the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Judge Henderson opened the session by saying, “We have caucused on this. Argue this case as if it was being argued yesterday morning.”
The Sessions resignation proved to be anti-climatic as it pertained to this litigation. The Court asked for supplemental briefs on how it impacted this case. In response, both sides asserted that it should have none.
On Thursday, November 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals will hear In Re: Grand Jury Investigation, No. 18-3052, Andrew Miller v. Robert Mueller. The 1pm hearing will take place at the United States Courthouse in the fifth floor courtroom at 333 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, DC.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who will advance three principal arguments:
1) Congress did not authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel as an officer of the United States.
2) Mueller is a principal officer and should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate like all U.S. Attorneys.
3) If Mueller is an inferior officer as he claims, the Appointments Clause requires that he be appointed by the “head of the department,” which is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
On October 9, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his reply to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s brief in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a witness in Mueller’s investigation, who has declined to appear before the Grand Jury convened by Mueller on the basis that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. Miller lost at the District Court level, a decision he is appealing. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
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 ➡ “Taking Down Goliath: A Constitutional Challenge to Mueller’s Powers”
The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 8, two days after the midterm elections, on the challenge by Andrew Miller to the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On Friday, September 28, Mueller filed a 71-page brief making many of the same flawed arguments he made at the District Court level. A reply brief by Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, is due on October 9. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
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.