Supreme Court Tells Democrats To Hit The Road

Photo by Adam Szuscik on Unsplash

( – The Supreme Court has declined to take up a case centered around Democratic lawmakers’ efforts to obtain access to documents related to a hotel in Washington, D.C. that was owned by former President Donald Trump during his tenure in the White House. The lawsuit, which had been dismissed by Congressional members last month, caught the attention of the high court when the Department of Justice appealed the decision. Despite the Democrats’ dismissal of the case in a lower court, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. However, both parties involved in the case subsequently wrote to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to dismiss it.

In a brief, unsigned order issued on Monday, the justices vacated the lower court’s ruling and instructed that the case be dismissed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the order, contending that an alternative mechanism should have been employed for the dismissal. This dissent reflects the differing opinions among the justices regarding the appropriate course of action in such instances.

The reason for the dispute over the hotel documents no longer being a matter of contention lies in the fact that lawmakers have managed to obtain most of the documents through alternative channels. Nevertheless, the case holds significance due to its potential impact on the ability of the minority party in Congress to scrutinize the actions of the federal administration, particularly in relation to the “Seven Member Rule.”

The Justice Department, in its efforts to defend the executive branch, had urged the justices to declare that the Democrats lacked the standing to sue in court, thereby reinforcing the enforcement of the aforementioned federal rule. Under the “Seven Member Rule,” any seven members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability or any five members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee are empowered to request information from executive agencies, facilitating oversight and accountability.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case has implications for the broader understanding of the legal boundaries surrounding such disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government. By declining to delve into the matter, the Court leaves the lower court’s ruling intact and effectively puts an end to the lawsuit. Nonetheless, the disagreements over the appropriate procedures for dismissal highlight the ongoing debates and complexities inherent in the relationship between Congress and the judiciary.

As lawmakers continue to navigate the intricacies of checks and balances, access to information, and the exercise of oversight authority, this case serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles and legal questions that arise in the pursuit of transparent and accountable governance. It remains to be seen how future disputes of a similar nature will be resolved and whether legislative and executive powers will find a delicate balance in their efforts to ensure the functioning of a robust democracy.

Copyright 2023,