Current:Home > reviewsPoinbank:Supreme Court tosses House Democrats' quest for records related to Trump's D.C. hotel -Insightful Finance Hub
Poinbank:Supreme Court tosses House Democrats' quest for records related to Trump's D.C. hotel
TrendPulse View
Date:2025-04-10 03:30:54
Washington — The PoinbankSupreme Court on Monday dismissed a court fight over whether House Democrats can sue to get information from a federal agency about its lease for the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., which was awarded to a company owned by former President Donald Trump.
The court's unsigned order dismissing the case and throwing out a lower court decision in favor of the Democrats came weeks after it agreed to consider the dispute, known as Carnahan v. Maloney. After the Supreme Court said it would hear the showdown between the Biden administration, which took over the case after Trump left office, and Democratic lawmakers, the House members voluntarily dismissed their suit.
The court battle stems from a 2013 agreement between the General Services Administration, known as the GSA, and the Trump Old Post Office LLC, owned by the former president and three of his children, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Trump's company renovated the building, which sits blocks from the White House, and converted it into a luxury hotel, the Trump International Hotel. Trump's company ultimately sold the hotel last year, and it was reopened as a Waldorf Astoria.
Following Trump's 2016 presidential win, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, and 10 other members of the panel sent a letter to the GSA requesting unredacted lease documents and expense reports related to the Old Post Office. The lawmakers invoked a federal law known as Section 2954, which directs executive agencies to turn over certain information to the congressional oversight committees.
The law states that a request may be made by any seven members of the House Oversight Committee, and is viewed as an oversight tool for members of the minority party.
The GSA turned over the unredacted documents in early January 2017, but later that month, Cummings and three other House members requested more information from the agency, including monthly reports from Trump's company and copies of all correspondence with representatives of Trump's company or his presidential transition team.
GSA declined to comply with the request, but said it would review it if seven members of the Oversight Committee sought the information. Cummings and Democrats then followed suit, though the agency did not respond to his renewed request. It did, however, turn over information, including nearly all of the records sought by the committee Democrats, after announcing it would construe the requests, known as Section 2954 requests, as made under the Freedom of Information Act.
Still, Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee sued the GSA in federal district court, seeking a declaration that the agency violated the law and an order that the GSA hand over the records at issue. (Cummings died in 2019, and five Democrats who joined the suit are no longer in the House.)
The district court tossed out the case, finding the lawmakers lacked the legal standing to sue. But a divided panel of judges on the federal appeals court in Washington reversed, reviving the battle after concluding the Democrats had standing to bring the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit then declined to reconsider the case.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court's finding that members of Congress can sue a federal agency for failing to disclose information sought under Section 2954 conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents and "contradicts historical practice stretching to the beginning of the Republic."
"The decision also resolves exceptionally important questions of constitutional law and threatens serious harm to all three branches of the federal government," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court in a filing (the court tossed out that decision with its order for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the case).
The Justice Department warned that the harm allegedly suffered by the members of Congress — the denial of the information they sought — doesn't qualify as a cognizable injury under Article III of the Constitution.
"And our Nation's history makes clear that an informational dispute between Members of Congress and the Executive Branch is not of the sort traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process," Prelogar wrote.
But lawyers for the Democrats urged the court to turn down the case, writing it "involves no division of authority requiring resolution by this Court, but only the application of well-established principles of informational standing to a singular statute."
"Moreover, it presents no recurring constitutional issue warranting this Court's attention. To the contrary, it involves a once-in-a-decade, virtually unprecedented rejection of a Section 2954 request," they wrote in court filings.
- In:
- Supreme Court of the United States
veryGood! (54251)
Related
- Which apps offer encrypted messaging? How to switch and what to know after feds’ warning
- Senate Democrats ask Garland to name special counsel to investigate Clarence Thomas
- Keri Russell Says Girls Were Out of the Mickey Mouse Club Once They Looked Sexually Active
- Free at Starbucks on Wednesday, July 10: A reusable straw for your summer of cold drinks
- Intel's stock did something it hasn't done since 2022
- Taylor Swift calls for help for fans as heat beats down in Switzerland
- Buckingham Palace opens room to Queen Elizabeth's famous balcony photos. What's the catch?
- 'Longlegs' will haunt your nightmares and 'hijack your subconscious,' critics say
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- Presidential battle could play role in control of state capitols in several swing states
Ranking
- Average rate on 30
- Alex De Minaur pulls out of Wimbledon quarterfinal match vs. Novak Djokovic
- Free at Starbucks on Wednesday, July 10: A reusable straw for your summer of cold drinks
- Mississippi man charged with stealing car that had a baby inside; baby found safe
- A Mississippi company is sentenced for mislabeling cheap seafood as premium local fish
- What Gypsy Rose Blanchard Said About Motherhood Months Before Pregnancy Reveal
- Founder of collapsed hedge fund Archegos Capital is convicted of securities fraud scheme
- Senate Democrats ask Garland to name special counsel to investigate Clarence Thomas
Recommendation
Scoot flight from Singapore to Wuhan turns back after 'technical issue' detected
Pritzker signs law banning health insurance companies’ ‘predatory tactics,’ including step therapy
Taylor Swift sings two break-up anthems in Zürich, and see why she wishes fans a happy July 9
More details released in autopsy for gunman who shot and killed four officers in Charlotte
Sam Taylor
Eric Roberts 'can't talk about' sister Julia Roberts and daughter Emma Roberts
You'll L.O.V.E Ashlee Simpson's Family Vacation Photos With Evan Ross and Their Kids
Ellen DeGeneres Says She's Done After Netflix Special