![handle is hein.crs/govelif0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional ______
R' fesearch Service
Congressional Investigation of the Trump
Indictment
April 19, 2023
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr. recently asked a federal district court to declare invalid a
House Judiciary Committee (Committee) deposition subpoena issued as part of an inquiry into the
indictment of former President Trump. The disputed subpoena was issued not to Mr. Bragg but to a
former employee of the District Attorney's office, Mark Pomerantz. Mr. Bragg's suit names the
Committee, Chairman Jim Jordan, and Mr. Pomerantz as defendants and seeks a court order enjoining Mr.
Pomerantz from complying with the subpoena, partly on the ground that the Committee lacks the type of
legitimate legislative purpose that is necessary to support a congressional subpoena. In making that
argument, the complaint asserts that the Committee failed to satisfy the standards established by the
Supreme Court in Trump v Mazars a case that applied a new and heightened scrutiny to congressional
subpoenas for presidential records. A federal judge has scheduled a hearing in the case for April 19.
This Sidebar addresses two aspects of Mr. Bragg's complaint. First, it briefly considers whether Mr.
Bragg's lawsuit can be maintained against the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Jordan. Second, the
Sidebar addresses the appropriate standard to be applied if a court were to reach the merits of this dispute,
and specifically whether the heightened scrutiny established in Mazars applies to the subpoena at issue.
Speech or Debate Clause Restrictions on Suits Against the House and its Members
Mr. Bragg's lawsuit to quash the Committee's subpoena was brought against the Committee, Chairman
Jordan, and Mr. Pomerantz. It appears unlikely that Mr. Bragg will be able to maintain his suit against
Chairman Jordan or the Committee. As discussed in this previous Sidebar, the Constitution's Speech or
Debate Clause (Clause) generally bars certain claims when made against a Member of Congress or a
congressional committee. The Clause largely immunizes Members from civil suits predicated on their
legislative acts, and the Supreme Court has made clear that the exercise of the subpoena power plainly
fall[s] within the definition of legislative for purposes of the Clause. As a result, courts have repeatedly
dismissed civil lawsuits filed directly against Members of Congress or congressional committees seeking
to quash or block congressional subpoenas.
Still, the Clause immunizes Members, not subpoenas. A court may assess the validity of a congressional
subpoena when a party with an adequate interest in the demanded information sues the subpoena's
recipient-rather than a Member or a committee-to block that party from complying with the subpoena.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10950
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govelif0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most