No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER v. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY B. WALL Deputy Solicitor General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General SOPAN JOSHI Assistant to the Solicitor General MARK R. FREEMAN MICHAEL S. RAAB BRAD HINSHELWOOD Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (I) RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D.D.C.): In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, No. 19-gj-48 (Oct. 25, 2019) United States Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.): In re: Application of the Committee on the Judici- ary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, No. 19-5288 (Mar. 10, 2020) Supreme Court of the United States: Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary, No. 19A1035 (May 20, 2020) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statutory provision and rules involved ....................................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................... 8 A. The decision below is incorrect ...................................... 11 1. An impeachment trial before a legislative body is not a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e) ....... 11 2. The court of appeals’ interpretation would create substantial constitutional difficulties with the ordinary application of Rule 6(e) .............. 19 B. The decision below warrants this Court’s review ........ 26 Conclusion ................................................................................... 29 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Mar. 10, 2020) ..... 1a Appendix B — District court opinion (Oct. 25, 2019) .......... 82a Appendix C — Court of appeals order (Oct. 25, 2019) ...... 180a Appendix D — Rules ............................................................ 182a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Atwell v. United States, 162 F. 97 (4th Cir. 1908) .............. 16 Bradley v. Fairfax, 634 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1980) ............. 18 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) ............................... 25 Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979)..................................................... passim Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007).............................................................. 12 Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) .................. 18 Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ............. 4 Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557 (1983) ........................................................................ 21, 25, 28 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) ..................... 20 McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842 (D.C. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 597 (2020) ................................... 3, 4 Murdick v. United States, 15 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1926), cert. denied, 274 U.S. 752 (1927) ............. 16 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)..... 14, 18, 21 ,23 Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) ......................................................... 13 Schmidt v. United States, 115 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 1940) ...................................................................... 16 Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations v. Ferrer, 856 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ......................... 20 Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015) ....................... 13 Special February 1971 Grand Jury, In re, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973) ............................................... 18 Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 660 (2019) .......... 28 United States v. American Medical Association, 26 F. Supp. 429 (D.D.C. 1939) ........................................... 16 United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983) ............ passim United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503 (1943) ............. 26, 27 United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958)......................................... 8, 20, 21, 22, 27 United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983)..................................................... passim United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940).............................................................. 15 Constitution, statutes and rules: U.S. Const.: Art. I: § 2, Cl. 5 ...................................................................... 21 § 3, Cl. 6 ................................................................ 14, 21 V Constitution, statutes, and rules—Continued: Page § 6, Cl. 1 (Speech or Debate Clause).......................... 6 Art. III ................................................................................ 7 § 1 ............................................................................... 14 Act of July 30, 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-78, § 2(a), 91 Stat. 319-320 ......................................................... 3, 11, 21 26 U.S.C. 7441 ........................................................................ 18 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1) ............................................................... 18 Fed. R. Crim. P.: Rule 6(e) (1946) .............................................2, 11, 16, 189a Rule 6(e) (1977) .................................................. 2, 21, 188a Rule 6(e) ......................................................... passim, 182a Rule 6(e)(2) ......................................................... 3, 11, 182a Rule 6(e)(2)(B) ....................................................... 11, 182a Rule 6(e)(3) .......................................... 3, 4, 12, 13, 15, 183a Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) .................................................... 15, 183a Rule 6(e)(3)(E) ............................................... passim, 185a Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) ........................................... passim, 185a Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)-(v) ............................................. 11, 185a Rule 6(e)(3)(F) ....................................................... 12, 186a Rule 6(e)(3)(F)(ii) .................................................. 12, 186a Rule 6(e)(3)(G) ................................................. 12, 24, 186a Rule 6(e)(7) ............................................................. 20, 187a Rule 6(e) advisory committee’s note (1944 Adoption) .......................................................... 16 Rule 6(e)(3)(E) advisory committee’s note (1983 Amendments) ................................................... 12 Rule 53 .............................................................................. 13 Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) ..................................................................... 26 VI Miscellaneous: Page Black’s Law Dictionary: (2d ed. 1910) ..................................................................... 11 (10th ed. 2014) .................................................................. 11 S. Rep. No. 354, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) ...................... 21 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER v. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States Department of Justice, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 81a) is reported at 951 F.3d 589. The opinion of the district court (App., infra, 82a-179a) is reported at 414 F. Supp. 3d 129. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 10, 2020. The jurisdiction of this Court is in- voked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 STATUTORY PROVISION AND RULES INVOLVED Three versions of Federal Rule of Criminal Proce- dure 6(e)—as originally promulgated in 1946, as di- rectly enacted by statute in 1977, and as it exists today—are reproduced in the appendix to this petition. App., infra, 182a-190a. STATEMENT In July 2019, respondent petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for the disclosure of certain secret grand-jury matters “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial pro- ceeding.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). Respondent asserted that a potential impeachment trial of the Pres- ident of the United States conducted by the Senate would be a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e). The district court granted the petition in substantial part and authorized disclosure. App., infra, 180a-181a. The court of appeals affirmed. Id. at 1a-81a. 1. In May 2017, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, III as spe- cial counsel