The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant case, Carnahan v. Maloney, which revolves around members of Congress seeking disclosure of information related to a real estate contract involving one of former president Donald Trump’s companies. The case originated from an investigation into a 2013 contract between the General Services Administration (G.S.A.) and Trump’s company, which entailed leasing and converting a building into a hotel. As Trump embarked on his presidential campaign in 2016, members of the House Oversight Committee grew concerned about potential conflicts of interest surrounding this agreement, prompting their interest in obtaining further information.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 2954, which permits the House Oversight Committee (and its Senate equivalent) to request information from executive agencies within their jurisdiction, the committee requested details regarding the lease agreement from the G.S.A. However, the company rejected their request. This led the committee members to initiate a lawsuit against the G.S.A., demanding the release of the requested information.
Initially, a lower court ruled against the members, asserting that they lacked Article III standing to sue since they could not claim harm suffered solely in their official capacities as legislators. Nevertheless, this ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that the legislators possessed Article III standing. The appellate court reasoned that denying them access to legally entitled information constituted an injury.
Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, parties can bring forth lawsuits and have their cases heard if they can meet three criteria:
Take control of your legal job search and sign up for LawCrossing today.
- The party filing the lawsuit must demonstrate a genuine interest in the outcome, substantiated by the existence or likelihood of particular harm.
- This harm must be traceable back to the subject matter of the lawsuit.
- The harm should be remediable through a court decision.
Notably, the Trump Organization, one of Donald Trump’s companies, currently operates nine hotels located across North America, Europe, and Asia. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case comes on the heels of a federal jury finding Trump liable for sexually assaulting writer E. Jean Carroll, resulting in a $5 million damages award in her favor.
With the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case, it is poised to tackle a crucial issue surrounding congressional access to information and the extent of lawmakers’ legal standing to pursue disclosure in matters related to potential conflicts of interest. This decision carries significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government and for transparency and accountability in governance.
As the case unfolds before the highest court in the land, legal experts, politicians, and the general public will closely watch the outcome. The ruling has the potential to shape future interactions between lawmakers and executive agencies, establishing precedents that may impact the dynamics of governance for years to come. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carnahan v. Maloney will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding governmental transparency, the separation of powers, and the accountability of public officials.
