In Dispute with Congress, DOJ Asks Judge to Keep Out

, The National Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

For months, the U.S. Justice Department has argued the judiciary should play no role in a spat between Congress and the department over access to internal documents about Operation Fast and Furious, the controversial gun trafficking sting in which federal agents allowed firearms to flow freely into the hands of criminals in Mexico.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Avon

    And what if the Executive Branch had told the Supreme Court it had no business getting involved in the Nixon Watergate tapes?
    Well of course they want a compromise. Instead of whatever the Legislative is entitled to under the law, they'd be delighted to hand over "compromise" bits of inconclusive data.
    Just as Nixon would have been happy to "negotiate" for 18 of the blankest minutes of tape.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202597396693

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.