Contempt of Congress

Last updated

Contempt of Congress [1] is the misdemeanor act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents. [2]

Contents

History

In the late 1790s, declaring contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature, in a similar manner as the British Parliament could make findings of contempt of Parliament—early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

In Anderson v. Dunn (1821), [6] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." [6] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States. [7]

In the Air Mail Scandal of 1934, William MacCracken, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was sentenced to ten days of detention for destroying evidence under subpoena. MacCracken appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court in Jurney v. MacCracken . After losing his case, he surrendered to Chesley Jurney, Senate sergeant at arms, who detained him in a room at the Willard Hotel.

While it has been said that "Congress is handcuffed in getting obstinate witnesses to comply", [8] cases have been referred to the United States Department of Justice. [9] The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege. [10] [11]

In March 2024, it was reported that Peter Navarro would be the first former White House official to be imprisoned for a contempt of Congress criminal conviction. [12] Steve Bannon would then follow in July 2024. [13] Both Navarro and Bannon's contempt of Congress convictions and prison sentences were connected with their refusals to comply with subpoenas which required them testify before the now-defunct House Select Committee that investigated January 6, 2021. [13]

Subpoenas

The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v. United States (1957) that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation." [14] Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States (1961), [15] a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975) [16] that congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech or Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a congressional subpoena. For example, attorney–client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized. [17]

Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation). [18]

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. [19]

MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken . [20] [21]

The last attempt by the House of Representatives to use this inherent contempt process was on July 11, 2024, when they voted on a resolution that could have held Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress. The resolution would have imposed a fine of $10,000 per day on Garland for defying a congressional subpoena until he handed over audio of former special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Joe Biden. [22] This attempt fell short in a 204 to 210 vote by the House of Representatives and Garland was not found in inherent contempt, with four Republicans voting with all Democrats to oppose the measure. [23]

Statutory proceedings

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; [24] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. [9]

Civil procedures

Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times.

Partial list contempt resolutions since 1975

PersonSubcommittee/CommitteeChamberUltimate Disposition
Rogers C.B. Morton,
Secretary of Commerce 		November 11, 1975
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 		Not consideredMorton released the material to the subcommittee.
Henry Kissinger,
Secretary of State 		November 15, 1975
House Select Committee on Intelligence 		Not consideredCitation dismissed after "substantial compliance" with subpoena.
Joseph A. Califano Jr.,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 		August 6, 1978
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 		Not consideredCalifano complied with the subpoena about one month after the subcommittee citation.
Charles W. Duncan Jr.,
Secretary of Energy 		April 29, 1980
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations 		Not consideredDuncan supplied the material by May 14, 1980.
James B. Edwards,
Secretary of Energy 		July 23, 1981
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations 		Not consideredDocuments were delivered to Congress prior to full Committee consideration of the contempt citation.
James G. Watt,
Secretary of the Interior 		February 9, 1982
Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce
February 25, 1982
House Committee on Energy and Commerce 		Not consideredThe White House delivered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours, providing for no staff or photocopies.
Anne Gorsuch,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 		December 2, 1982
Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation

House Committee on Public Works and Transportation

House of Representatives U.S. Attorney Stanley S. Harris never presented the case to a Grand Jury as required by law. [25] After legal cases and a court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents and withdrew contempt citation.
Rita Lavelle,
EPA official		April 26, 1983
House Committee on Energy and Commerce 		House of RepresentativesIndicted for contempt of Congress, but acquitted in trial; [26] Later convicted for lying to Congress and sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000. [27] [28]
Jack Quinn,
White House Counsel 		May 9, 1996
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 		Not consideredSubpoenaed documents were provided hours before the House of Representatives was set to consider the contempt citation.
David Watkins,
White House Director of Administration
Matthew Moore, White House aide
Janet Reno,
Attorney General 		August 6, 1998
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 		Not consideredThe majority of documents in question were released following the conclusion of the Department of Justice investigation into campaign finance violations of 1996. However, an additional memo was withheld and later claimed as privileged by the George W. Bush administration. [29]
Harriet Miers,
Former White House Counsel 		July 25, 2007
House Committee on the Judiciary [30] 		February 14, 2008 House of Representatives [31] On March 4, 2009, Miers and former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush Karl Rove agreed to testify under oath before Congress about the firings of U.S. attorneys
Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff
Eric Holder, Attorney General June 20, 2012
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [32] 		June 28, 2012 House of RepresentativesFound in contempt by a vote of 255–67 [33] [34]
Lois Lerner
Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division 		March 11, 2014
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [35] 		May 7, 2014 [36] House of RepresentativesFound in contempt for her role in the 2013 IRS controversy and refusal to testify. The Department of Justice declined to prosecute. (See: Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress (H.Res. 574; 113th Congress))
Bryan Pagliano
IT director, Hillary Clinton aide		September 13, 2016
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [37] [38] 		Not consideredHouse Committee voted, 19–15, to recommend Pagliano for a contempt resolution for failing to appear during a September 13 and 22, 2016, hearing after being subpoenaed and submitting a written Fifth Amendment plea in lieu of appearing in person. [37] [38] [39] No contempt resolution was considered by the chamber but Committee member Jason Chaffetz subsequently addressed a letter to the US Attorney General, writing as an individual member of Congress, requesting DOJ prosecution of Pagliano for misdemeanor "contumacious conduct." [40]
Backpage.com March 17, 2016
Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 		March 17, 2016 [41] SenateFound in contempt for failing to provide documents in an investigation into human trafficking.
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General

Wilbur Ross, United States Secretary of Commerce

House Committee on Oversight and ReformJuly 17, 2019, House of Representatives [42] Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform
Chad Wolf, United States Secretary of Homeland Security September 17, 2020
House Homeland Security Committee [43] 		Not consideredActing Homeland Secretary Chad Wolf defies subpoena and skips House hearing as he faces whistleblower allegations that he urged department officials to alter intelligence.
Steve Bannon October 18, 2021

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack [44]

October 21, 2021, House of RepresentativesFound guilty by a Federal Jury of unlawfully defying a subpoena issued by the January 6th Committee. Sentenced to 4 months in prison. Began serving his four-month prison sentence on July 1, 2024, after his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. [45]
Mark Meadows, White House Chief of StaffDecember 13, 2021

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack [46]

House of RepresentativesOn December 14, 2021, House of Representatives voted 222–203 to hold Meadows in contempt for defying a January 6 Committee subpoena. [47] [48]
Peter Navarro, White House AdviserFebruary 23, 2022

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

House of RepresentativesFound guilty by a Federal Jury of contempt of Congress by unlawfully defying a subpoena issued by the January 6th Committee on September 7, 2023. Began serving his 4-month sentence on March 19, 2024, after his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. [49]
Dan Scavino, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for CommunicationsFebruary 23, 2022

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

House of RepresentativesOn April 6, 2022, House of Representatives voted 220–203 to hold Scavino in contempt for defying a January 6 Committee subpoena. [50]
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe BidenJanuary 10, 2024

House Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on Oversight and Reform [51]

House of Representatives [52] Biden agrees to provide a deposition to Committee on Oversight and Reform. [53]
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney GeneralJune 12, 2024

House Committee on the Judiciary

House of RepresentativesFound in contempt by a 216–207 vote for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the House Judiciary and Oversight committees. [54]
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney GeneralJuly 10, 2024

Brought forward by a privileged resolution written by U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna [55]

House of Representatives [56] On July 11, the United States House of Representatives found Garland not in "inherent contempt" by a 204–210 vote. [57]
Ralph de la Torre, CEO of Steward Health Care September 19, 2024 [58]

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)

Senate [59] Found in criminal contempt by unanimous consent on September 25, 2024. [59] Certification of civil contempt charge is pending submission of a report by the HELP Committee. [60]
Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of StateSeptember 24, 2024

House Foreign Affairs Committee [61]

Not consideredThe full House of Representatives has not yet scheduled a vote on the committee's recommendation. However, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, commented that he expected the measure would likely not be taken up for a vote until after the presidential election. [62]

See also

Related Research Articles

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merrick Garland</span> American lawyer and jurist (born 1952)

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as the 86th United States attorney general since 2021. He previously served as a circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 2021. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Republican-led U.S. Senate did not hold a vote to confirm him.

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the executive branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking. Whether confirmation hearings, legislative, oversight, investigative, or a combination of these, all hearings share common elements of preparation and conduct. Hearings usually include oral testimony from witnesses and questioning of the witnesses by members of Congress. George B. Galloway termed congressional hearings a goldmine of information for all the public problems of the United States. A leading authority on U.S. government publications has referred to the published hearings as "the most important publications originating within Congress." The Senate Library in a similar vein noted "Hearings are among the most important publications originating in Congress."

A detailed chronology of events in the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

United States Intelligence Community Oversight duties are shared by both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Oversight, in this case, is the supervision of intelligence agencies, and making them accountable for their actions. Generally oversight bodies look at the following general issues: following policymaker needs, the quality of analysis, operations, and legality of actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William P. MacCracken Jr.</span> American politician (1888–1969)

William Patterson MacCracken Jr. was the first U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics. His department was awarded the Collier Trophy of 1928 for its contribution to the "development of airways and air navigation facilities". Later he was convicted of contempt of congress in the Air Mail scandal in 1934.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lois Lerner</span> American attorney

Lois Gail Lerner is an American attorney and former United States federal civil service employee. Lerner became director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2005, and subsequently became the central figure in the 2013 IRS targeting controversy in the targeting of politically aligned groups, either denying them tax-exempt status outright or delaying that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election. On May 10, 2013, in a conference call with reporters, Lerner apologized that Tea Party groups and other groups had been targeted for audits of their applications for tax-exemption. Both conservative and liberal groups were scrutinized. Only three groups—all branches of the Democratic group Emerge America—had tax exemptions revoked. Lerner resigned over the controversy. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, completed in 2015, found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia" but "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress</span> US House resolution

H.Res. 574, officially titled Recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was a simple resolution that passed in the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. The resolution was in response to the testimony of Lois Lerner, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee, who was at the center of the then-ongoing 2013 IRS controversy over the agency's targeting of selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status. The resolution held Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify at a congressional hearing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amit Mehta</span> American judge (born 1971)

Amit Priyavadan Mehta is an American lawyer who has served as United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia since 2014. In 2021, Mehta became a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">117th United States Congress</span> 2021–2023 meeting of U.S. legislature

The 117th United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It convened in Washington, D.C., on January 3, 2021, during the final weeks of Donald Trump's first presidency and the first two years of Joe Biden's presidency and ended on January 3, 2023.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mueller special counsel investigation</span> U.S. investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections

The Robert Mueller special counsel investigation was an investigation into 45th U.S. president Donald Trump regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and was conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019. It was also called the Russia investigation, Mueller probe, and Mueller investigation. The investigation focused on three points:

  1. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
  2. Trump associates and their connection to Russian officials and espionage
  3. Possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his associates

This is a timeline of events in the first half of 2019 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and followed by the second half of 2019, 2020, and 2021.

The United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration acquired by a February 2018 subpoena the Apple iCloud metadata of two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, several others associated with the committee, and some of their family members. The subpoena covered 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses since the inception of the accounts. Seizing communications information of members of Congress is extraordinarily rare. The department also subpoenaed and obtained 2017 and 2018 phone log and email metadata from news reporters for CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Apple also received and complied with February 2018 subpoenas for the iCloud accounts of White House counsel Don McGahn and his wife. Microsoft received a subpoena relating to a personal email account of a congressional staff member in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack</span> Former select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives

The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol was a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives established to investigate the U.S. Capitol attack.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</span>

The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election. Later in 2022, a special counsel was appointed. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted. The indictment also describes six alleged co-conspirators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anna Paulina Luna</span> American politician (born 1989)

Anna Paulina Luna is an American politician who serves in the United States House of Representatives from Florida's 13th congressional district as a member of the Republican Party. She is the first Mexican-American woman elected to Congress from Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal impeachment in the United States</span> Procedure of officially accusing a civil officer

In the United States, federal impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives charges the president, vice president, or another civil federal officer for alleged misconduct. The House can impeach an individual with a simple majority of the present members or other criteria adopted by the House according to Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ "Contempt of Congress". LII / Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on August 3, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  2. ↑ Congressional Research Service (December 27, 2007). "Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities". EveryCRSReport.com. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved December 19, 2019. Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities.
  3. ↑ "Founders Online: The Case of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney, 28 December 17 …". founders.archives.gov.
  4. ↑ "U.S. Senate: Senate Holds Editor in Contempt". www.senate.gov.
  5. ↑ "Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 – Chapter 53 – Punishment of Witnesses for Contempt". www.govinfo.gov.
  6. 1 2 "Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  7. ↑ Act of January 24, 1857, Ch. 19, sec. 1, 11 Stat. 155.
  8. ↑ Wright, Austin (May 15, 2017). "Why Flynn could easily beat his Senate subpoena". Politico . Retrieved May 17, 2017.
  9. 1 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL34097, Congress's Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, Todd Garvey (May 12, 2017).
  10. ↑ Memorandum for the Attorney General from Theodore Olson, Re: Prosecution for the Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege Archived February 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine , 8 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 101 (1984)
  11. ↑ Memorandum for the Attorney General from Charles J. Cooper, Re: Response to Congressional Requests for Information Regarding Decisions Made Under the Independent Counsel Act Archived December 8, 2019, at the Wayback Machine , 10 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 68 (1986)
  12. ↑ Leonard, Kimberly; Cheney, Kyle (March 19, 2024). "'I'm pissed': Ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro blasts justice system before heading to federal prison". Politico. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  13. 1 2 Murray, Sara; Polantz, Katelyn; Cole, Devan (July 1, 2024). "Steve Bannon begins serving 4-month sentence in federal prison for defying congressional subpoena". CNN. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  14. ↑ Warren, Earl (1957). "WATKINS v. UNITED STATES". United States Reports. 554: 576. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  15. ↑ "Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  16. ↑ "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491 (1975)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  17. ↑ "Understanding Your Rights in Response to a Congressional Subpoena" (PDF). Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  18. ↑ Garvey, Todd (May 12, 2017). "Congress's Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 10. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  19. ↑ "William P. Mac Cracken Jr. Papers". ecommcode2.com. Archived from the original on April 21, 2008. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  20. ↑ "Jurney v. MacCracken 294 U.S. 125 (1935)". justia.com. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  21. ↑ "This is the Statement of SEN. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, before the Senate Judiciary Committee". senate.gov. Archived from the original on March 18, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  22. ↑ Carney, Jordain (July 11, 2024). "House GOP fails to pass effort to fine Garland $10,000 per day". Politico. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  23. ↑ Hubbard, Kaia (July 11, 2024). "Republican effort to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress falls short". CBS News. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  24. ↑ Eggen, Dan (April 11, 2007). "House Panel Issues First Subpoena Over Firings". The Washington Post.
  25. ↑ Maitland, Leslie (March 14, 1983). "U.S. ATTORNEY SAID TO ACT ON HIS OWN IN NOT PRESSING BURFORD CASE". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  26. ↑ Timothy Bella (November 13, 2021). "Decades before Steve Bannon was charged with contempt of Congress, Rita Lavelle was tried". washingtonpost.com.
  27. ↑ Shabecoff, Philip (January 10, 1984). "Rita Lavelle gets 6-month term and is fined $10,000 for perjury". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  28. ↑ "Costly Lies: Rita Lavelle is convicted of perjury". content.time.com. December 12, 1983.
  29. ↑ Marquis, Christopher (May 19, 2000). "F.B.I. Memo Details Freeh Warning to Reno". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  30. ↑ Stout, David (July 25, 2007). "Panel Holds Two Bush Aides in Contempt". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 17, 2014. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
  31. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 60". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. February 14, 2008. Archived from the original on February 27, 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2008.
  32. ↑ Perez, Evan (June 20, 2012). "House Panel Votes to Hold Holder in Contempt". The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
  33. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 441". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. June 28, 2012. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  34. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 442". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. June 28, 2012. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  35. ↑ "Lois Lerner's Involvement in the IRS Targeting of Tax-Exempt Organizations". house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on December 25, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  36. ↑ "House votes to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress". Fox News . May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on October 23, 2015. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  37. 1 2 Gerstein, Josh (September 22, 2016). "House panel votes to hold Clinton tech aide Bryan Pagliano in contempt". Politico . Archived from the original on October 19, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
  38. 1 2 "Examining Preservation of State Department Records". oversight.house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on September 21, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017. In the event Mr. Pagliano fails to appear, the Committee will consider the following: Resolution and Report recommending that the House of Representatives find Bryan Pagliano in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  39. ↑ "Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records". oversight.house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on September 22, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  40. ↑ "Chaffetz Asks Justice Department to Uphold Institutional Interests of Congress" (Press release). United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. February 17, 2017. Archived from the original on October 5, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2018. Archived letter.
  41. ↑ "Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee". www.hsgac.senate.gov. Archived from the original on May 8, 2019. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  42. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 489, Recommending that the House of Representatives find William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, and Wilbur L. Ross Jr., Secretary of Commerce, In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform". Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  43. ↑ "Chad Wolf defies Subpoena impeached after historic vote". December 19, 2019. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved December 24, 2019.
  44. ↑ "Steve Bannon Indicted for Criminal Contempt of Congress - November 13, 2021". Daily News Brief. November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 15, 2021.
  45. ↑ "Trump ally Steve Bannon surrenders to federal prison to serve 4-month sentence on contempt charges". Associated Press. July 1, 2024. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  46. ↑ Jansen, Bart (December 13, 2021). "Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows held in contempt by House Jan. 6 committee". USA Today. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  47. ↑ Dickson, Caitlyn (December 14, 2021). "House votes for Meadows to face criminal charges for defying Jan. 6 probe". Yahoo! News . Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  48. ↑ Feinberg, Andrew; Garcia, Eric (December 15, 2021). "Mark Meadows: House votes to hold ex-Trump aide in contempt of Congress and refers him for prosecution". The Independent . Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  49. ↑ "Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro reports to prison on contempt of Congress conviction". NBC News. March 19, 2024. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
  50. ↑ Wu, Nicholas; Cheney, Kyle (April 6, 2022). "House votes to hold Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro in contempt". Politico. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  51. ↑ Fitzpatrick, Sarah; Concepcion, Summer; Richards, Zoë (January 10, 2024). "GOP-led committees vote to recommend that House hold Hunter Biden in contempt". NBC News. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  52. ↑ Watson, Kathryn (January 12, 2024). "House to vote next week on holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress". CBS News. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  53. ↑ "Hunter Biden agrees to deposition with House Republican after months of defiance, committee says". AP News. January 18, 2024. Retrieved January 19, 2024.
  54. ↑ Yilek, Caitlin (June 12, 2024). "House votes to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for withholding Biden audio". CBS News . Retrieved June 12, 2024.
  55. ↑ Brooks, Emily (July 10, 2024). "Luna moves to force vote on fining Garland $10,000 per day". The Hill. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  56. ↑ Tarinelli, Ryan (July 11, 2024). "House rejects 'inherent contempt' resolution for Garland over tape of Biden interview". Roll Call. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  57. ↑ Wong, Scott; Stewart, Kyle (July 11, 2024). "Republicans fail to hold AG Merrick Garland in contempt and fine him over Biden audiotapes". NBC News. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  58. ↑ Pressman, Aaron (September 19, 2024). "Senate panel votes to hold Steward CEO Ralph de la Torre in contempt". The Boston Globe . Archived from the original on September 25, 2024. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  59. 1 2 Yang, Maya (September 25, 2024). "US Senate votes unanimously to hold hospital CEO in criminal contempt". The Guardian . Archived from the original on September 25, 2024. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  60. ↑ Pressman, Aaron; Puzzanghera, Jim (September 25, 2024). "Steward CEO could face prison time after rare Senate vote to punish him for flouting subpoena". The Boston Globe . Archived from the original on September 25, 2024. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  61. ↑ Zengerle, Patricia (September 24, 2024). "US House committee recommends contempt charge for Blinken". Reuters. Retrieved September 24, 2024.
  62. ↑ Amiri, Farnoush; Lee, Matthew (September 24, 2024). "House Republicans advance contempt charges against Secretary Blinken over Afghanistan testimony". Associated Press. Retrieved September 24, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.