Judge Orders Miers to Testify

Harriet Miers, shown as White House counsel in 2005, was ordered to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys despite a claim of executive privilege. (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)

Congressional Democrats hailed the ruling as a victory in their battles with the White House over documents, testimony and other issues.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the ruling gave Congress a "road map" by which committees could gain testimony from former West Wing officials, including ex-deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.

"It was a victory for all who believe in checks and balances. . . . It certainly strengthens our hand," Pelosi told reporters.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said in a statement that "today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law."

Bates urged both sides to compromise because the clock is ticking. "The Court strongly encourages the parties to reach a negotiated solution to this dispute," Bates wrote.

The lawsuit by the committee was the first ever filed by either chamber of Congress seeking to force the executive branch to comply with a subpoena, according to both sides.

The House committee wants Miers to testify about the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006, which many Democratic lawmakers contend were fueled by political considerations. It also is seeking documents from Bolten that may shed light on the dismissals.

The House voted 232 to 32 to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the subpoenas. With authorization from the House, the committee filed suit in March after the Justice Department declined to investigate the two on criminal allegations of contempt.

The Bush administration has won several court fights over executive privilege in recent years, but those came mostly in lawsuits filed by public interest groups seeking documents. "This is historic, because it is the first judicial opinion that squarely upholds a congressional subpoena against the White House," said Peter M. Shane, a professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law and an authority on executive privilege.

Bates spent much of his opinion tearing down White House arguments that the House did not have standing to sue the White House. In 2002, Bates ruled that congressional investigators did not have such standing to sue Cheney for energy policy documents.

But yesterday, Bates wrote that the House committee had standing because the House had authorized the suit and the committee subpoenaed the records as part of an official investigation.

He also rejected a White House argument that the judiciary should not become involved in disputes between the political branches of government, writing that the courts play an important role in settling such matters.

The Bush administration had argued that Congress had other tools, including withholding funding, to force its hand. But Bates was particularly dismissive of an argument that the House had the authority to arrest presidential advisers for refusing to comply with subpoenas.

"One can easily imagine a stand-off between the Sergeant-at-arms and executive branch law enforcement officials concerning taking Mr. Bolten into custody and detaining him," Bates wrote.

Staff writer Paul Kane and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.