Van Hollen, Colleagues File Amicus Brief Defending Court’s Right to Seek Answers, Transparency in JGG v. Trump

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), joined by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), submitted an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of In re Donald J. Trump, et. al, supporting the legal authority of the District Court to inquire whether government attorneys misrepresented or concealed facts before the Court and warning of serious consequences of permitting one branch to avoid inquiry and transparency when questioned by another co-equal branch of our federal government. The lawmakers’ amicus brief argues that Congress and the American public have an interest in knowing whether government attorneys misrepresented or concealed facts before a United States District Court, and that concerns of judicial overreach in this case are unfounded because federal courts have an inherent contempt power which includes some inquiry before a referral is made. This case arises from JGG v. Trump , one of several legal challenges to the Trump Administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. In March 2025, President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security sought to detain and remove individuals from the United States. Several of the individuals who were detained sought emergency relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and federal habeas corpus claims. Proceedings ensued before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which issued a temporary restraining order preventing further removal of individuals, an order that was then vacated by the Supreme Court. The District Court then began an investigation into potential criminal contempt against the government decisionmakers. Of particular concern to the Court was to determine whether government attorneys had misrepresented, concealed, or otherwise gave misleading information to the Court. Following the contempt inquiry, the government sought a writ of mandamus before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to prevent the District Court from further investigating the actions of the government and its attorneys. The Senators begin the brief, “Congress requires that lawyers tell the truth in judicial proceedings. It has set forth through statute that government attorneys are subject to the same rules as all other attorneys requiring truthfulness and transparency to the Courts. When a party or counsel is not honest in proceedings before them, Courts have the fundamental power to punish contempt. Congress has explicitly codified this power. And the exercise of this power is squarely within the providence of the judiciary...The Court has every right to try to make sense of these events. Mandamus to prevent that inquiry should not issue.” “The executive branch, through counsel, may have misrepresented or concealed facts when questioned by a federal court...The executive branch must follow court orders the same as the rest of the citizenry...Such conclusion flows inexorably from perhaps the most evident and well-accepted point in constitutional law: that the government of the United States is comprised of three coequal branches,” the Senators stress. On the unfounded concerns of judicial overreach, the Senators note, “All federal courts other than the Supreme Court are creations of Congress. Congress has explicitly provided federal courts with the authority to conduct contempt proceedings and punish accordingly... Exercising the contempt power is fundamentally within the providence of the judiciary... Excusing the executive branch at this stage is simply premature, and the District Court should be permitted to act within its statutorily conferred authority.” “Mandamus is simply not appropriate. This case presents one coequal branch acting in defiance of an order from another coequal branch. This is too critical to prevent inquiry. The District Court was well within its authority to utilize the mechanism of contempt—a power inherent in all courts and explicitly codified by Congress,” the Senators conclude. Full text of the argument in the brief can be viewed here . ###