The Obama Justice Department would not prosecute Holder, resulting in a protracted legal battle; it wasn't until January that a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to produce some documents.
The Obama administration appealed, and the case lingered until President Donald Trump took office. Whilethe Trump Justice Department agreed to release some records in March , the litigation was finally resolved only Wednesday after both sides ended a dispute over some of the judge's decisions. Bush's former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt after the White House, citing executive privilege, directed them not to comply with subpoenas for documents related to a congressional investigation into the firing of several U.
The speaker of the House asked the U. Congress sued, and a district court judge sided with lawmakers. The Bush administration appealed, and while the case was still pending, Obama took office. The new administration then settled the case, granting Congress access to some of the documents it sought and allowing sworn testimony from Miers.
By then, a year and a half after Congress issued the subpoena, the oversight issue largely was moot. Other Cabinet-level or senior executive branch officials cited for contempt in recent history include Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. Califano Jr. Quinn in ; and Attorney General Janet Reno in After members of the House Judiciary Committee concluded their markup discussion over the resolution to hold Barr in contempt Wednesday, the panel voted on the resolution.
The resolution now could go to a vote in the full House. Only a simple majority is needed to advance the contempt resolution, and only one chamber needs to approve the measure for a person to be prosecuted for contempt.
With a criminal contempt citation, the House would refer the citation to the U. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, which can seek an indictment from a grand jury.
All federal prosecutors, including all plus U. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in Congress.
Although these powers are not directly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they are implicit as an essential legislative power held by Congress. Daugherty , a Supreme Court decision about Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of former Attorney General Harry Daugherty. A select Senate committee issued a subpoena for Daugherty to testify and to also surrender records from an Ohio bank.
When Daugherty refused to comply after a second subpoena, the Senate passed a resolution issuing a warrant and authorizing a Senate deputy to take Daugherty into custody. Daugherty filed a habeas petition against his detention. A lower court ruled that the Senate exceeded its powers by detaining Daugherty, freeing him. Another interesting dispute over inherent contempt citations took place in , when a House subcommittee had United States attorney H.
Snowden Marshall cited for contempt because he used insulting language in a letter to Congress. In recent battles between Congress and the Executive Branch over contempt charges, executive privilege claims originating from a presidential directive or a Justice Department decision to not convene a grand jury have stopped criminal contempt proceedings from advancing.
Given that Holder ultimately did not face any legal sanctions, what could that mean for Barr? With the House Judiciary Committee recommending that Barr be held in contempt of Congress and President Donald Trump invoking executive privilege relating to materials sought by Congress to probe obstruction of justice and abuse of power allegations, it would appear that the House and executive branch are on a collision course that may ultimately be decided by the courts.
The conflict relates to the authority of Congress to investigate the president, or any part of the executive branch. While the U.
Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, the U. They must meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public offices. The U. As early as , in Kilbourn v.
0コメント