The Supreme Court has announced that it will review whether individual members of Congress have the right to sue a government agency for access to information about the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. This decision comes after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had standing to sue for documents related to potential conflicts of interest at the hotel.
Former President Donald J. Trump and his children had leased the Old Post Office Building, now known as the Trump International Hotel, in 2013. The lease explicitly stated that no elected official of the U.S. government could benefit from the lease. Critics raised ethical and constitutional concerns about Trump’s ownership of the hotel while serving as president. The Trump family sold the hotel last year, and it is currently operating as a Waldorf Astoria.
In 2017, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, along with 16 colleagues, issued a request under a 1928 federal law that empowers seven members of the House oversight committee to obtain information from relevant agencies. However, the General Services Administration refused to comply, arguing that individual members of Congress lacked the authority to conduct oversight.
The lawmakers sued, and a trial judge initially dismissed the case based on standing grounds. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the lawmakers, with Judge Patricia A. Millett writing that a denied request for information to which the requester is entitled constitutes a concrete and individualized injury. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg dissented, arguing that individual members of Congress cannot assert the institutional interests of the legislature.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case, known as Carnahan v. Maloney, even though the number of committee members involved has decreased since the case’s initiation. The Biden administration sought review from the Supreme Court, prioritizing institutional considerations over partisan interests.
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether individual members of Congress have the right to sue for information in cases involving conflicts of interest between the executive branch and legislators. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued against Supreme Court review, suggesting that members of Congress have alternative means, such as oversight hearings and legislative measures, to address official-capacity harms.
The outcome of this case will have implications for the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. It will determine whether individual members of Congress can seek judicial intervention to access information and address conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court’s decision will provide clarity on the standing of Congress members in such disputes and the potential limitations on their ability to challenge the executive branch in court.