Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding a decision by the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Kagan’s participation in Obamacare legal discussions during her tenure as the Obama administration’s Solicitor General and whether her confirmation testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the matter was accurate.

The House Judiciary Committee made its decision after receiving a June 24, 2011, letter from forty-nine Members of Congress requesting an investigation of the matter. The Members were reacting to Judicial Watch’s release of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit indicating that Justice Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s legal strategy to defend Obamacare, which seems to contradict Kagan’s confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.The issue could be central as to whether Justice Kagan will recuse herself from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

We are pleased that the House Judiciary Committee has followed Judicial Watch’s lead and is investigating Justice Kagan’s role as Obama’s solicitor general in crafting a defense of Obamacare.The stakes are high regarding Kagan’s participation in Obamacare litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court is all but certain to decide whether or not Obamacare passes constitutional muster.Justice Kagan suggested during her confirmation testimony that she was merely a disinterested bystander during legal discussions about Obamacare. However, the documents Judicial Watch pried loose from the Obama Justice Department suggest otherwise. Justice Kagan and her key deputies were heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare.

Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the Department of Justice by the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents were first produced in the Media Research litigation. Both the Media Research Center and Judicial Watch continue to seek additional documents.