Malcolm Rivera
The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the House of Representatives subpoena powers, but Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily. The Supreme Court has also ruled that Congress has broad authority to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. The House can enforce subpoenas through civil action or contempt of Congress, and it has the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Subpoena power in the Constitution | Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has validated it as a power of the federal legislature |
| Congressional investigations | A staple of life in the legislative branch, with a long history of use |
| Purpose of a subpoena | To legally order individuals to provide information or documents to a committee |
| Who can issue a subpoena | Congressional committees of either house, the entire Senate, or the entire House of Representatives |
| Validity of subpoenas | Depends on the committee rules being followed |
| Contempt powers | The House and the Senate can invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee's investigative powers are obstructed |
| Enforcing subpoenas | Congress can file a civil lawsuit in federal court, use its inherent contempt power, or avoid the courts and use non-compliance as evidence for articles of impeachment |
| Limitations | Cannot be used to investigate Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Congressional subpoenas are orders to produce records or testimony
- Congress has broad authority to oversee the executive branch
- The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can compel witnesses and testimony
- Congress can enforce subpoenas through civil action or contempt of Congress
- Congress can use its inherent contempt power to detain subpoena violators
Congressional subpoenas are orders to produce records or testimony
Congressional subpoenas are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily. The Supreme Court has upheld Congress's subpoena power, ruling that the Clause in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution acts as a significant barrier to judicial interference in Congress's exercise of its subpoena power.
In the case of Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, the Supreme Court concluded that the Clause protects Congress's power to investigate and issue subpoenas. The case involved a private non-profit organization that filed a suit against the Chairman of a Senate subcommittee, seeking to block a congressional subpoena issued to a bank for the non-profit's account information as part of an investigation into alleged "subversive" activities harmful to the U.S. military. The Court held that Congress had the power to investigate and issue subpoenas in such cases.
When an individual or agency receives a congressional subpoena, they typically have the option to negotiate the terms of compliance. Congress has, in the past, worked out compromises to receive partial witness testimony or redacted evidence. However, if negotiations fail or are not an option, Congress has three main ways to enforce subpoenas:
- Pursue criminal contempt: Congress can ask the U.S. Attorney for D.C. within the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against the violator. If found guilty, this could result in a federal misdemeanor with a maximum $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence.
- File a civil lawsuit: Congress can file a civil lawsuit in federal court, requesting a judge to order compliance with the subpoena. However, this process can take a significant amount of time to resolve.
- Inherent contempt power: Congress can use its inherent contempt power by sending the Sergeant at Arms to detain subpoena violators. However, this option is considered extreme and has not been used since 1935.
Thomas Jefferson's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Congress has broad authority to oversee the executive branch
Congress, as one of the three coequal branches of the US government, is ascribed significant powers by the Constitution. The Constitution divides the federal government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This ensures that no individual or group will have too much power.
Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. This includes the power to request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily.
The power to investigate is an aspect of Congress's power to legislate, and it is as broad as Congress's powers to legislate. However, it is limited to inquiries that are "in aid of the legislative function," meaning Congress may not "expose for the sake of exposure." Congress's ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the executive branch is often discussed and sometimes controversial, although not often litigated.
Congress can enforce subpoenas through civil actions or contempt of Congress. While courts generally do not interfere in valid congressional attempts to obtain information, Justice Thurgood Marshall's concurrence in Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund suggests that the restraint exercised by the courts in deference to the separation of powers is not absolute.
Congress's oversight of the executive branch is an important check on the President's power and a balance against their discretion in implementing laws and making regulations. Congress conducts oversight through hearings, committees, and its investigative organization, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
James Madison's Age When Drafting the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can compel witnesses and testimony
The Constitution does not explicitly grant the House subpoena powers. However, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily. In the late 1790s, declaring contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature, similar to the British Parliament's power to make findings of contempt of Parliament.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress can compel witnesses and testimony. In Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund (1975), the Supreme Court concluded that the Speech or Debate Clause acts as a significant barrier to judicial interference in Congress's exercise of its subpoena power. The Court held that congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause, which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" when Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere."
In United States v. Ryan (1971), the Court noted that those resisting a subpoena have a choice between compliance and the possibility of being held in contempt if their claims are rejected on appeal. While courts generally refrain from interfering in valid congressional attempts to obtain information, Justice Thurgood Marshall's concurrence in Eastland suggests that this restraint is not absolute and is based on the separation of powers.
Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. Immunity statutes, which have deep roots in Anglo-American jurisprudence, reflect the importance of testimony and the fact that many offenses are of such a nature that only implicated individuals can provide useful testimony.
In the case of Counselman v. Hitchcock, the Court ruled that a limited immunity statute was unconstitutional because it did not provide immunity coextensive with the privilege it replaced. Following this ruling, Congress enacted a statute conferring transactional immunity to compel testimony. The Court has also indicated that use restrictions in regulatory schemes requiring the reporting of incriminating information are a practical resolution to this issue, and Congress has since enacted statutes adopting such restrictions.
Executive Branch: Exploring Job Opportunities and Their Impact
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Congress can enforce subpoenas through civil action or contempt of Congress
The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the House subpoena powers, but Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony and evidence when information is not provided voluntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v. United States (1957) that "the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process".
Congress can also enforce subpoenas through civil action. One option is for Congress to file a civil lawsuit in federal court, requesting a judge to order compliance with the subpoena. Another option is for the House to avoid the courts and use the administration's noncompliance as further evidence for articles of impeachment against the president.
The Most Essential Cabinet Position: Who Takes the Crown?
You may want to see also
Congress can use its inherent contempt power to detain subpoena violators
The Constitution does not explicitly give the House subpoena powers. However, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily. The Supreme Court has affirmed Congress's power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas.
The inherent contempt process involves sending the Sergeant at Arms to detain subpoena violators. This process was last used by the Senate in 1934 during an investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. William P. MacCracken Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty of allowing clients to destroy subpoenaed documents and was sentenced to 10 days of imprisonment.
Congress has three types of contempt powers: criminal contempt, civil lawsuit, and inherent contempt. Criminal contempt of Congress is a statutory process enacted in 1857, which can result in fines and jail terms. A civil lawsuit is brought by the House or Senate, asking a court to enforce a subpoena. Inherent contempt is the third and least commonly used power, where Congress enforces contempt rulings directly.
Ukraine's Constitutional Change: Removing Absolute Immunity
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The power to conduct congressional investigations is not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has validated this as a power of the federal legislature.
A subpoena is a legal mechanism to bring required individuals before a congressional committee. The individual is legally obligated to testify before the committee about a specified topic or to provide requested documentation.
If someone does not comply with a subpoena, Congress can file a civil lawsuit in federal court, requesting a judge to order compliance. Alternatively, Congress can use its "'inherent contempt' power and send the Sergeant at Arms to detain the subpoena violator, although this is seen as an extreme option.
