Did Nadler Break The Law? Hearing Scheduled

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler denied Republican demands for a minority hearing on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, prompting accusations from ranking member Doug Collins that Democrats were violating their own rules. Nadler countered that Republicans were seeking a broader privilege than what was allowed and that their views had already been represented by George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley. Nadler's interpretation of House rules meant that Republicans would be granted their day of hearings after the articles of impeachment had already been drafted and voted upon, which would defeat the purpose of the minority hearings.

House rules and minority hearing rights

Minority Witness Rule

According to Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI, also known as the "minority witness rule", minority party members of a committee have the right to call witnesses of their choosing to testify on at least one day of a hearing. This request must be made to the chairman in writing by a majority of the minority members before the completion of the hearing. The chairman is then required to schedule another day of hearings where the witnesses requested by the minority must be invited to testify, but the chairman retains the discretion to determine the timing of the hearing and may also call witnesses.

In practice, the rule has largely served as a "backstop", with the majority usually inviting minority witnesses after consultation and negotiation.

Scheduling of Hearings

Rule XI Clause 2(g)(3) requires that the chairman provide at least one week's notice before the commencement of any committee hearing. This notice period can be shortened with the agreement of the ranking minority member of the committee or by a majority vote of the committee.

Witness Requirements

Rule XI Clause 2(g)(5) states that committees must require witnesses to submit written statements of their proposed testimony in advance of hearings. For witnesses appearing in a non-governmental capacity, this submission must include disclosure of grants or contracts with the federal government or a foreign government, and whether the witness is a fiduciary of an organisation with an interest in the subject matter of the hearing.

Questioning of Witnesses

Rule XI Clause 2(j)(2) provides that each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses until each member of the committee has had the opportunity to question each witness. The rule also allows committees to adopt a motion permitting a specified number of members to question a witness for longer than five minutes, up to a total of one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority parties.

Scope of Hearing Questions

The subject matter of a hearing is determined by the notice required under Rule XI Clause 2(g)(3) and the chair's opening statement required under Rule XI Clause 2(k)(1). Members may object to questions that are not relevant to this subject matter.

Closing a Hearing

Under Rule XI Clause 2(g)(2), committee hearings are normally conducted in open session, except when the committee determines that disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement investigations, defame or incriminate any person, or otherwise violate any law or rule of the House. A majority quorum is required to close a hearing.

Recessing or Adjourning a Hearing

Rule XVI Clause 4 states that a motion to adjourn is highly privileged in the House and takes precedence over all other motions. An affirmative vote on the motion to adjourn does not require the presence of any type of quorum and can be accomplished by the members who are present. A working quorum is required to defeat a motion to adjourn.

Maintaining Decorum

House Rule XI Clause 4(c) requires that the general conduct of each meeting and the personal behaviour of committee members, staff, witnesses, media, and the public shall conform to acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum. The Capitol Police can remove disruptive spectators from the room at the request of the chair.

Points of Order

Points of order are the basic method of enforcing order in the House and its committees. Under House Rule I Clause 5, the chair must recognise any member raising a point of order, and the ruling of the chair on points of order is subject to appeal by any member.

Raising a Question of Personal Privilege

If committee practices affect the "rights, reputation, or conduct" of an individual member, they may raise a question of personal privilege on the House floor under House Rule IX. This takes precedence over all other matters except a motion to adjourn, and the member is entitled to speak for an hour in response.

Jerry Nadler's rejection of a minority hearing day

On December 12, 2019, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler rejected Republican demands for a minority hearing day on the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The ranking Republican on the committee, Rep. Doug Collins, argued that House rules required the chairman to schedule a minority hearing day, where they could call their own witnesses.

Collins claimed that Nadler ignored their request in favor of rushing through the process. He said:

> "The chairman has refused to respond to multiple additional requests that that hearing be scheduled. It's a farce that we're ruling on this today, but there's no other time we're actually taking up the articles today."

Nadler countered that Republicans were trying to get a "broader privilege" than what is allowed and said that the GOP's witness in the first hearing—George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley—ensured the minority view was represented.

The chairman said he would be open to scheduling a hearing for Republicans but would not cancel the day's hearing to do so. He stated:

> "The House rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day, nor does it require me to schedule a hearing as a condition precedent to taking any specific legislative action. Otherwise, the minority would have the ability to delay or block majority legislation action, which is clearly not the purpose of the rule."

Nadler's interpretation of the rule meant that Republicans would be granted their day of hearings after the articles of impeachment had already been drafted and voted upon, which would defeat the purpose of the minority hearings.

Ranking member Doug Collins' response

Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) accused House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of unlawfully denying Republicans a minority hearing day on impeachment. He argued that House rules require the chairman to schedule a minority hearing day, where they can call their own witnesses. He further stated that Nadler ignored their requests in favour of rushing through the process.

Collins claimed that Nadler refused to respond to multiple additional requests for a hearing and that it was a "farce" that they had to rule on the matter on the same day that articles of impeachment were being considered. He invoked House of Representatives Rule XI 12(j)(1), which allows the minority party to call for their own day of hearings.

In response to Collins' request, Nadler said that the House rule does not require him to schedule a hearing on a particular day and that it is not a condition precedent to taking any specific legislative action. Nadler implied that the only reason Collins wanted to hold a minority day of hearings was to block or delay the completion of the articles.

Nadler argued that there was no need for a minority day as the Republican views had already been heard through their witness, law professor Jonathan Turley. He also cited the provisions allowing minority subpoenas in H. Res. 660, which he claimed the minority had not exercised. However, Collins and other Republicans countered that every effort to exercise those provisions had been blocked by majority party-line votes.

Collins and other Republicans expressed frustration with Nadler's interpretation of the rules, accusing him of making up excuses to limit the rights of the minority. They saw Nadler's decision as part of a pattern of partisan antics and creative rule interpretation by House Democrats leading the impeachment effort.

Nadler's interpretation of House rules

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold L. Nadler denied Republicans a minority hearing day on impeachment, ruling that they were trying to get a "broader privilege" than what is allowed. Nadler's interpretation of House rules was that the Republicans would eventually be granted their day of hearings, but only after the articles of impeachment had already been drafted and voted upon. He argued that the House rule does not require him to schedule a hearing on a particular day and that the minority day rule wasn't intended to be used as a delay tactic.

According to Nadler, the purpose of the minority day rule was to ensure that the minority party's views were represented, which he claimed had already been achieved through their witness, law professor Jonathan Turley. He also cited the provisions allowing minority subpoenas in H. Res. 660, which the minority had not exercised. However, Republicans countered that their efforts to exercise those provisions had been blocked by majority party-line votes.

Under House Rule XI clause 2(j)(1), Minority Members have the right to demand a day of hearings to allow witnesses to testify on the subject of a current hearing. This rule is intended to give the minority party an opportunity to be heard and ensure their views are represented in the legislative process. In the context of the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump, the ranking minority member of a committee is allowed to call and subpoena witnesses, but only with the approval of the committee chair and the majority vote.

Nadler's interpretation of the House rules was criticised by Republicans, who accused him of making up and creatively reinterpreting the rules to limit the rights of the minority. They argued that Nadler was denying their clearly stated rights and using procedural tactics to rush through the impeachment process.

The purpose of minority hearings

The "minority witness rule" is Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI. It states that when a House committee or subcommittee holds a hearing, the minority party members of the panel have the right to call witnesses of their choosing to testify on at least one day of that hearing. This rule was first introduced in 1970 as a means to guarantee that the minority's position on a given issue is represented by witness testimony before congressional committees.

In practice, the minority party rarely formally invokes this rule because committees typically accommodate minority witness requests prior to the point of order being raised during a committee hearing. However, in the event that the minority's request to call witnesses comes after a hearing has begun, the hearing must be continued on an additional day to accommodate minority witnesses.

Although the minority party has the right to choose its witnesses, the committee majority maintains control over the scheduling and logistics of the hearing. This includes the date, time, and rules covering how the witnesses are questioned. The committee chair can limit questioning to the minimum required five minutes per member and can include their own panel of witnesses to minimize the time spent questioning the minority's witnesses.

The scope of a hearing with minority witnesses is generally limited by the subject of the hearing. The committee is not required to permit testimony or questioning that strays from the announced subject. The committee majority, applying a "reasonableness test," retains the right to determine the relevance of testimony and the appropriate length of a minority day of witnesses.

The minority hearing day can be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair, who is only required to set the day and location "under a reasonable schedule." There is no hard deadline for when the chair must schedule the hearing, and it is unlikely to be set for a date or time preferred by the minority.

In the case of impeachment hearings, the procedures outlined in H.R. 660 may supersede those of Rule XI of the House Rules. According to H.R. 660, the ranking member of the committee is authorized to choose witnesses for testimony, but the committee chair must concur with their choice. This means that without agreement from the chair, the ranking member's prerogative is effectively nullified.

Frequently asked questions