Documents Raise Questions about Kagan’s Role in Obamacare Defense by Tom Fitton 23 May 2011 post a comment Share This: If Obamacare reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which it surely will, one key question may determine whether or not the president’s socialist healthcare takeover will remain the law of the land: Will Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case? Kagan has said she was not involved in Department of Justice (DOJ) preparations for legal challenges to Obamacare. Moreover, the Supreme Court justice did not recuse herself from the High Court decision in April 2011 not to “fast-track” for Supreme Court review Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Obamacare. But documents obtained by Judicial Watch as result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit suggest that Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s legal strategy to defend Obamacare. (Judicial Watch’s lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents referenced in this release were first produced in the Media Research litigation.) According to a January 8, 2010, email from Neal Katyal, former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) to Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Kagan was involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning: Subject: Re: Health Care Defense: Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues...we will bring in Elena as needed. [The “set of issues” refers to another email calling for assembling a group to figure out “how to defend against the...health care proposals that are pending.”] On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.” In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal’s DOJ colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. “Could you figure out the right person or people for that?” Hauck asked. “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them,” Katyal responded. “I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.” However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal’s position changed significantly as he began to suggest that Kagan had been “walled off” from Obamacare discussions. For example, the documents included the following May 17, 2010, exchange between Kagan, Katyal and Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesperson: Shmaler to Katyal, Subject HCR [Health Care Reform] litigation: “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG [Solicitor General’s] office was consulted?... Katyal to Schmaler: “No she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” Katyal (forwarded to Kagan): “This is what I told Tracy about Health Care.” Kagan to Schmaler: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me.” Included among the documents is a Vaughn index, a privilege log which describes records that are being withheld in whole or in part by the Justice Department. The index provides further evidence of Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare-related discussions. For example, Kagan was included in an email chain (March 17–18, 2010) in which the following subject was discussed: “on what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” The subject of the email was “Health Care.” Another email chain on March 21, 2010, entitled “Health care litigation meeting,” references an “internal government meeting regarding the expected litigation.” Kagan is both author and recipient in the chain. The index also references a series of email exchanges on May 17, 2010, between Kagan and Obama White House lawyers and staff regarding Kagan’s “draft answer” to potential questions about recusal during the Supreme Court confirmation process. The White House officials involved include: Susan Davies, Associate White House Counsel; Daniel Meltzer, then-Principal Deputy White House Counsel; Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice President; and Ronald Klain, then-Chief of Staff for Vice President Biden. The DOJ is refusing to produce this draft answer. The Vaughn index also describes a March 24, 2010, email exchange between Associate Attorney General Beth Brinkmann and Michael Dreeben, Kagan’s Deputy Solicitor General, with the subject header, “Health Care Challenges:” “...I had a national conference call with the Civil Chiefs. A memo also went out the day before. I am forwarding right after this. Let’s discuss if you have more ideas about what to do.” So let’s sum up. Kagan instructs her office “to be involved” in crafting the Obama administration’s defense of health care reform legislation, which is certainly consistent with her former responsibilities as Solicitor General. As documented in the emails and Vaughn index, she was constantly kept apprised of ongoing litigation strategy discussions. As recently as March 2010, Kagan’s top deputy urged her to attend a high level briefing on Obamacare litigation, without a hint that it might be inappropriate. Then the president nominates Kagan to the Supreme Court in May 2010, and all of the sudden she knows nothing about the Obama administration’s legal strategy for defending Obamacare? Moreover, Kagan scolds a Justice Department spokesperson for not clearing all sound bites over the matter through her personally. So what does the law say about these kinds of judicial conflicts of interest? What is the standard for recusal? As reported by CNS News: In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455 in deciding whether she felt compelled to recuse herself as a Supreme Court Justice from any case that came before the High Court. According to the law, a “justice ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” It further says any justice “shall also disqualify himself ... [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to this conclusion: Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s defense of Obamacare. And as long as the DOJ continues to withhold key documents, the American people won’t know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court.