Article snippet: The impending court battle over a congressional subpoena for Don McGahn is about to test the concept of “immunity” for top presidential advisers, which has been invoked by both Republican and Democratic administrations but hardly tested in courts. Legal experts say the outcome of a court battle between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House over McGahn documents and testimony could have significant implications for the powers of Congress and the executive branch. The court fight could take months, even years, to resolve, further frustrating House Democrats as they seek to follow investigative threads from former special counsel MORE’s Russia probe. The Trump administration says McGahn and other White House advisers are “absolutely immune” from compelled congressional testimony about their work in the West Wing, arguing the concept is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and has been affirmed by past administrations, including as recently as the Obama White House. Under the standard of immunity, the administration argues that current and former staffers aren't required to disclose what took place in the White House, pointing to the confidential protections offered to the executive branch. “This long-standing principle is firmly rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers and protects the core functions of the Presidency, and we are adhering to this well-established precedent in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively ex... Link to the full article to read more