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:
This article by ABC News digital reporter Ali Dukakis appears on the ABC website under the title, “The Conservative DC Legal Group Behind a Challenge to the Mueller Probe:”
The latest legal challenge to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, now heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals, is being steered by a veteran Washington legal group that has a history of taking on Democrats and is bankrolled, in part, by longstanding Republican donors.
The National Legal and Policy Center is backing a subpoena fight launched by Andrew Miller, a former associate of Trump confidant and political provocateur Roger Stone, who has refused a demand from prosecutors to appear before a grand jury. He is objecting, the lawyers said, in order to mount a broad legal challenge to the legitimacy of the special counsel probe.
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.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was held in Contempt by Judge Beryl Howell this morning, a result necessary to appeal the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Howell stayed the Contempt pending the resolution of our appeal.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, representation made possible by NLPC.
Kamenar will file the appeal Monday morning based on our assertion that Mueller was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and that his appointment is invalid because he was not appointed by the Attorney General but by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Hon. Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena to a Grand Jury witness in the Russia collusion probe headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Motion was made by attorneys for a witness on the basis that Mueller’s appointment was not constitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Motion was argued during a 90-minute hearing on July 18. The names of the witness and the attorneys were redacted in the decision, which was made public today.
Howell’s denial was expected. Attorneys for the witness will appeal the ruling to a higher court.
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:
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 ➡ “Is Robert Mueller’s Probe Unconstitutional?”