Sun Sentinel Broward Edition

We don’t want the DOJ investigat­ing Congress

- By Noah Feldman Bloomberg Opinion

All sorts of informatio­n is now spilling out about how former President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice sought to investigat­e leaks related to the Russia investigat­ion. Under Trump, the department subpoenaed the confidenti­al data of journalist­s and, apparently, the White House counsel. Both of these are chilling, but arguably the worst violation so far is the Justice Department’s investigat­ion into members of Congress, including Adam Schiff, who was spearheadi­ng the Russia investigat­ion in Congress.

The reason this is so bad: It actively violated the separation of powers, a core constituti­onal principle.

The Constituti­on’s framers designed a system in which different branches of government would serve as checks on one other. The basic idea was that ambition must be made to check ambition, so that no one branch could consolidat­e power in itself and thereby undermine the structure of republican government. With the separation of powers, whenever one branch exercises great power, the others have the capacity to oversee it.

The rules that govern disclosure of classified material are based on executive orders issued by the president. They don’t apply to members of Congress — because the president has no jurisdicti­on over them, and they don’t work for the president. For the Department of Justice to investigat­e members of Congress and seek to determine whether they are leaking classified informatio­n thus exceeds the authority of the executive branch.

The laws passed by Congress that criminaliz­e disclosure of classified informatio­n almost certainly don’t apply to members of Congress. They apply to employees and officers of the federal government — that is, workers in the executive branch. This makes sense insofar as Congress effectivel­y delegated the system of classifyin­g secret informatio­n to the executive. Congress could in principle have criminaliz­ed leaks by its own members. But it hasn’t done so, at least not expressly.

As a result, leaks by members of Congress wouldn’t constitute a crime. When the executive branch shares classified informatio­n with Congress, it has to trust the people’s representa­tives to keep secrets that are truly crucial to maintain national security.

Congress functions as an official, constituti­onally recognized source of oversight over the executive branch. Indeed, even more than the judiciary, which can only assure that the executive branch follows the law when someone brings a case to it, the legislatur­e is the primary institutio­n charged under the Constituti­on with checking and overseeing the executive. You could formulate it into a simple rule: no congressio­nal oversight, no democracy.

The genuine danger posed by Department of Justice investigat­ions into congressio­nal leaks is that the security apparatus of the executive branch could come to dominate the democratic­ally elected Congress. That would undercut the very capacity of Congress to oversee the executive.

The fact that Congress was looking into possible collusion with Russia by Trump as part of its impeachmen­t inquiry makes this danger clear. If the president can launch inquiries into the members of the branch of government charged with overseeing him, he can short-circuit the power of Congress. To put it bluntly, the president and the Department of Justice could break democracy.

A first step in appropriat­e reform is for the Department of Justice to announce guidelines according to which it will not investigat­e members of Congress or subpoena their records unless they are being investigat­ed for a statutory crime such as corruption. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that his department would do so. This would match the Justice Department’s recent announceme­nt that it will stop issuing subpoenas against members of the press in leak investigat­ions, a practice previously used by administra­tions of both parties.

If these guidelines aren’t enough to constrain the executive, it might be worth going further, and requiring special vetting by independen­tly appointed, nonpartisa­n prosecutor­s before any such investigat­ion could be launched. The closest analogue would be the practice of appointing special counsel to investigat­e members of the executive branch such as the president.

In our radically polarized political world, the Department of Justice is a formidable tool with the power to subvert democracy. Ideally, the department would be sufficient­ly independen­t from presidenti­al political influence that we wouldn’t have to worry about the president using it to satisfy his own personal vendettas. But as we knew at the time, and know even more now, the Trump Department of Justice repeatedly violated traditiona­l norms of department­al independen­ce. Now we need formal steps to help restore that independen­ce — fast.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States