Obstruction Of Congress: Constitutional Violation Or Not?

Obstruction of Congress is a serious issue in the United States, and it can take various forms, including bribery, refusal to comply with subpoenas, and destruction or concealment of evidence. It is considered a misdemeanor and a violation of the Constitution, with potential penalties including fines and imprisonment. The Constitution grants Congress the power to hold individuals in contempt and investigate any obstruction, which is essential for maintaining the system of checks and balances in the government. In some cases, obstruction of Congress can also be grounds for impeachment, particularly when it involves the President or high-ranking officials and substantially hinders legitimate congressional inquiries into matters of constitutional or legal significance.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$238.4 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Obstruction of Congress and impeachment

The power of Congress to investigate is fundamental to the system of checks and balances in the United States. When a president obstructs Congress's oversight function, it undermines this system and may violate the president's constitutional obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Congress has several means of recourse when a president improperly obstructs valid congressional oversight, including holding officials in contempt, seeking judicial intervention, using the power of the purse to compel cooperation, and detaining or fining officials under its "inherent contempt" powers. Impeachment is the most solemn and severe form of recourse.

In the past, Congress has cited obstruction of congressional oversight as a basis for impeaching a president. The second and third articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon included allegations that he failed to act when he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were impeding lawful inquiries, and that he failed to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas. The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against Nixon for obstructing congressional oversight.

More recently, there have been discussions of obstruction charges against President Trump, relating to his directions to officials not to comply with the House's subpoenas for testimony and documents. Democratic Representative Shri Thanedar moved to force a House vote on articles of impeachment accusing Trump of "obstruction of justice, bribery and corruption, and tyrannical overreach". However, few Democrats have voiced support for impeaching Trump since he returned to office, and the measure is unlikely to advance with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.

Whether a president's refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations rises to the level of an impeachable offense should turn on at least two factors. First, Congress should find that the president has acted with corrupt intent vis-à-vis oversight requests. Second, impeachment is most appropriate where the obstruction substantially thwarts a legitimate congressional inquiry into a matter of significant constitutional or legal importance.

Contempt of Congress

Historically, the bribery of a US senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. However, this interpretation has been abandoned in favour of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offence against the United States.

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. Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. For example, Robert Randal was cited for attempting to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795.

In Anderson v. Dunn (1821), the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was protected from "indignity and interruption from rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy".

In the Air Mail Scandal of 1934, William MacCracken, the 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, but after losing his case, he surrendered to Chesley Jurney, the Senate sergeant at arms, who detained him in a room at the Willard Hotel.

More recently, in March 2024, Peter Navarro became the first former White House official to be imprisoned for a contempt of Congress criminal conviction, followed by Steve Bannon in July 2024. Both Navarro and Bannon's contempt of Congress convictions and prison sentences were connected with their refusals to comply with subpoenas requiring them to testify before the now-defunct House Select Committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

Obstruction of Congress can also be grounds for impeachment. Impeachment is Congress's way of holding government officials accountable. In the past, Congress has cited obstruction of congressional oversight as a basis for impeaching a president. For example, the second article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon included the allegation that he failed to act despite knowing that his subordinates were impeding lawful inquiries by legislative entities.

However, impeachment is not appropriate every time Congress's investigations are obstructed. The difference between negotiation and obstruction in the context of congressional oversight can be subjective, and legitimate power struggles between the executive and legislative branches are expected in the system of checks and balances.

To determine whether a president's actions rise to the level of an impeachable offence, Congress should consider at least two factors. Firstly, drawing from the law of obstruction of justice, Congress should find that the president has acted with corrupt intent regarding oversight requests. Secondly, the obstruction must substantially thwart a legitimate congressional inquiry into a matter of significant constitutional or legal importance.

Corrupt intent

The concept of "corrupt intent" is central to understanding the obstruction of Congress as a potential violation of the US Constitution. Obstruction of Congress refers to actions that hinder the legislative body's ability to conduct investigations, oversee the executive branch, and gather information through subpoenas and testimony. Corrupt intent, in this context, refers to the willful and improper interference with these congressional functions.

Historically, bribery of a US senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress, and in 1857, Congress made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense. Over time, the interpretation has evolved to include a broader range of obstructive actions. For example, the obstruction of congressional investigations, commonly known as “executive privilege," has become a contentious issue.

To establish corrupt intent, Congress must demonstrate that an individual acted with an improper purpose. This can include using prohibited forms of persuasion, such as intimidation, threats, or corrupt persuasion, to influence, impede, or obstruct congressional proceedings. It also involves the destruction, concealment, or alteration of evidence or information relevant to an investigation.

In the context of obstruction of justice, corrupt intent is a key element. The law of obstruction of justice provides a framework for determining corrupt intent in the context of congressional oversight. This includes examining the manner of persuasion, the motive for persuasion, and the resulting obstruction.

The severity of the obstruction is also a critical factor. Routine struggles between the executive and legislative branches over oversight may not necessarily rise to the level of corrupt intent. However, when a president's actions substantially thwart a legitimate congressional inquiry into matters of significant constitutional or legal importance, it may indicate corrupt intent.

In conclusion, the determination of corrupt intent in the obstruction of Congress is a complex and nuanced process. It involves assessing the motives, actions, and impact of an individual's conduct on the legislative body's ability to function and uphold its constitutional responsibilities.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Bribery

Obstruction of Congress is a serious issue that can undermine the system of checks and balances and may violate the Constitution. While not every instance of obstruction is impeachable, it can be grounds for impeachment when it substantially hinders a legitimate congressional inquiry into matters of significant constitutional or legal importance.

Now, focusing on bribery as an aspect of obstruction of Congress:

Historically, the bribery of a US senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In the late 1790s, Robert Randal was cited for contempt of Congress for attempting to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina. This interpretation, however, has been superseded by criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense. While bribery of a senator or representative is no longer considered contempt of Congress, bribery remains a serious federal offense that can obstruct congressional proceedings.

Federal law includes a range of criminal statutes that prohibit various means of obstruction, including bribery. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which pertains to the obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, addresses the willful destruction, concealment, or falsification of documents. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 outlaws witness tampering, while 18 U.S.C. § 1513 addresses witness retaliation. These statutes help to safeguard the integrity of congressional proceedings and investigations.

Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 1510, enacted in 1982, specifically addresses the obstruction of federal criminal investigations by bribery. This statute imposes penalties on individuals who willfully endeavor to use bribery to obstruct or delay the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a criminal investigator. The statute prescribes fines, imprisonment of up to five years, or both, as punishment for such offenses.

In summary, while the historical interpretation of bribery as contempt of Congress has evolved, federal law continues to recognize bribery as a significant form of obstruction. The presence of specific statutes targeting bribery underscores its seriousness and the potential for it to impede congressional functions and investigations.

Subpoenas

Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily. 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.

Congress has three options to enforce subpoenas in the face of defiance, but none are particularly appealing for lawmakers. Firstly, Congress could pursue criminal contempt by asking the U.S. Attorney for D.C. within the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against a violator. If found guilty, this would be a federal misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in prison.

Another option is for the House to avoid the courts and instead use the administration’s noncompliance as further evidence for articles of impeachment against the president.

Congressional subpoenas must meet three requirements 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. Third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

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.

Frequently asked questions