Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A new court should settle disputes between Congress and the president

courthouse
StanRohrer/Getty Images

Coleman was an assistant Missouri attorney general and Republican congressman from 1976 to 1993. Now retired as a lobbyist, he is an advisor to Protect Democracy, an anti-authoritarian watchdog group.


One of American democracy's bedrock precepts is that no one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. The principle was confirmed this month by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, when it reversed a lower federal court's ruling and said Congress has the authority to go to court to enforce subpoenas of executive branch officials.

Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint, the long and time-consuming road of judicial decision-making may have rendered the matter moot — allowing President Trump to run out the clock beyond the election.

The clock started running a seeming eternity ago, in March 2019, when the House Judiciary Committee began an investigation into alleged misconduct by Trump and his close advisors. The investigation followed up on special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the investigation into Russian interference in the last presidential election.

During the investigation, Mueller interviewed Donald McGahn, who was then serving as White House counsel. The Mueller report concluded that impeachment was the mechanism to address whether Trump impermissibly coordinated with the Russian government in connection with the election or obstructed justice in the course of the special counsel's investigation.

When McGahn refused the Judiciary Committee's invitation to testify, the panel issued a subpoena in April ordering McGahn to appear one month later, to testify and produce documents. Trump directed McGahn not to appear, claiming presidential advisors were "absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony." After all attempts to negotiate McGahn's appearance failed, the House filed a lawsuit in federal court last August to enforce its subpoena.

Here's how the litigation proceeded, in four steps:

The District Court rejected McGahn's claim, directing him to appear before the committee. Then McGahn appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit, where a divided three-judge panel found that he did not have to testify.

At that point, the appeals court granted the Judiciary Committee's petition to have all the judges on the court review the case. Then the full D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments and ruled 7-2 that the legislative branch has the legal standing to try to use the judicial branch to force the executive bench to comply with subpoenas.

That's where things stand now: Seventeen months after the initial request for testimony — six of those months after Trump was acquitted at the Senate trial that resulted from articles of impeachment drafted in the House Judiciary Committee — one more step of litigation, an appeal to the Supreme Court, is still possible.

The McGahn case is just the freshest illustration of how time consuming interbranch litigation can be, often resulting in a final resolution many months or even years after the dispute started — with the political and governing process continuing all the while. Any wrongdoing by a president and his aides is allowed to continue unabated. A Congress lasts only two years, making it likely this one will conclude in early January before the House can obtain judicial enforcement of its subpoena.

Trump's categorical direction to members of his administration — that no member of the executive branch shall cooperate with the impeachment investigation — not only assured litigation, but more importantly was also an effective stalling tactic.

The flagrant abuse of a constitutionally prescribed process must be addressed by Congress to assure that, in future litigation between the branches, the judicial system will not allow another bedrock principle of American democracy to become lost in the process: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

It is wrong to require Congress to repeatedly undertake a patently flawed judicial process to assure our constitutional checks and balances are not rendered obsolete. The current system produces a no-win situation for the rule of law. That's why Congress should pass legislation creating a new type of federal court — one with exclusive jurisdiction over, and focused solely on, disputes between the federal government's branches.

This special court is especially needed to handle future instances of Congress pursuing an impeachment.

The legislation should expedite the litigation process in such cases, allowing direct appeal of the court's ruling to the Supreme Court, and set special rules of procedure. It should also give consideration to spelling out when it's appropriate for the new court to abandon the general rule that so-called "political questions" are beyond the purview of the federal courts.

Failure to adopt meaningful changes in this process will only invite more non-compliance by a president faced with lawful inquiries by Congress. To condone an administration's wrongdoing is to encourage more of it and to give up on the rule of law and our democracy.

Read More

Thoughts on Gathering Storms

Category 4 Major Hurricane Helene approaching the Big Bend of Florida. At the same time the Pacific Category 3 Hurricane John making landfall on southwestern Mexico.

Getty Images, FrankRamspott

Thoughts on Gathering Storms

The North American hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30. The season, therefore, is hard upon us, even as the federal government is not prepared for what it may bring.

For the past 45 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been responsible for planning and providing national emergency relief to areas in the path of or affected by catastrophic storms the season often brings. The National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both of which are embedded in FEMA, provide critical information that FEMA used in its storm preparation process.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Is a Weapon Pointed at America. Our Best Defense Is Education.

Elementary students raising their hands to answer the teacher's question in a class in the robotics mechanical and electric classroom.

Getty Images, Cravetiger

AI Is a Weapon Pointed at America. Our Best Defense Is Education.

Foreign adversaries are already deploying artificial intelligence as a weapon against America, not just on distant battlefields, but within our social media feeds, news sources, and critical infrastructure. AI-powered disinformation campaigns designed to sow chaos and division, sophisticated cyber attacks – these are no longer future hypotheticals; they are clear and present dangers. America's most significant vulnerability in this new era isn't necessarily a lack of technology but a lack of understanding among our own citizens. An unprepared public is fertile ground for manipulation and a weak link in our national defense. To secure our future, we must urgently equip Americans with the knowledge to navigate an AI-shaped world.

This isn't just about recognizing deepfakes. National resilience requires citizens who understand the basics of how algorithms shape their information environment and can think critically about AI's influence. Furthermore, our national security apparatus itself desperately needs more AI-savvy personnel. The Department of Defense faces alarming shortages in its cyber and tech workforce – tens of thousands of critical positions remain vacant – hindering our ability to develop, deploy, and defend against AI capabilities. Simultaneously, our economic edge depends on fostering widespread innovation and adoption of AI, which is bottlenecked by a lack of skilled workers across industries. Simply put, AI literacy is now a cornerstone of both national defense and economic competitiveness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Medicaid Cuts in the GOP Budget Hurt Millions of Americans?
A patient with a medical professional.
Getty Images, Halfpoint Images

Will Medicaid Cuts in the GOP Budget Hurt Millions of Americans?

Republican Senator Joni Ernst recently faced an unexpectedly hostile audience at a town hall in Iowa, where her constituents jeered as she defended the GOP’s proposed cuts to Medicaid—a program providing healthcare to 71 million low-income Americans, nearly 20% of the population.

Ernst attempted to defend the Medicaid cuts contained in what President Donald Trump has dubbed his “big, beautiful bill.” The cuts have been estimated by independent experts to slice about $880 billion over 10 years from Medicaid. The bill, she insists, will not cut anything from truly deserving Americans, it will only cut waste and fraud because there are millions receiving Medicaid benefits who are not really eligible, such as illegal immigrants, or who are otherwise undeserving.

Keep ReadingShow less
English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

Writing "learn english"

Getty Images//Stock Photo

English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

English as the Official Language of the U.S.

On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.

Keep ReadingShow less