I dont think it requires a full formal subpoena for something to be considered a legal order, so non-compliance with the terms in this letter could easily be held as contempt of congress. (the record preservation part, at least. The rest is a 1st amendment SCOTUS case just waiting to happen).
What is a subpoena, if not a signed letter from an agent of congress directing either testimony or production of information? Its possible this letter in itself could be considered a subpoena, since it was delivered in an official capacity. The only formalisms I’m aware of are guidelines and convention, which don’t really mean anything anymore, and this letter seems to fit all the definitions I can find. I know it’s a dumb question to get hung up on since obviously “talk to a lawyer” is the #1 thing to do here, but still it’s an interesting question as to how legally binding an order in a form like this actually is.
A subpoena is a court order. Courts do not equal Congress. Separation of powers, and all that.
Edit: To clarify, courts don’t issue subpoenas, they sign off on them. Because this hasn’t been issued as a subpoena or signed off on by a court, it’s not a subpoena and cannot be construed as one. At least, within the bounds of the law. Which as we’ve seen don’t really matter at the moment.
Congress can absolutely issue subpoenas itself. Courts can rule on the legality, but they do not have to issue them on behalf of congress. ty for the edit I see what you meant now.
I realised my comment was woefully undercooked shortly after posting it 😅 It’s worth noting though that issuance isn’t the standard to be met; if the court doesn’t sign off on a subpoena, it’s not legally a subpoena and can’t be enforced regardless of who issued it.
So I did a bit of a dive and this is what I found:
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…
So clarify with a lawyer and ensure that this action was taken under full legal authority and it likely was. I will edit my main comment to prevent the spread of misinformation
No need, subpoenas are obvious and in fact of they aren’t obvious they aren’t a subpoena. Almost every subpoena from Congress the Senate or otherwise will have some variation of “subpoena duces tecum” in the header or the phrase you are “ordered” or “commanded” to appear or provide whatever.
What? No it doesn’t - the courts can rule on a subpoena once given out, but congress absolutely can issue them itself without certification from the courts. (edit: I’m actually unclear about this requirement, it’s quite possible you’re correct in that the courts must endorse an issued congressional subpoena) That’s a cornerstone of the separation of powers.
Nah, this is a letter from a single congressmen listing all his committes to make it look scary and official. Contempt of a congressmen isn’t contempt of Congress.
Yeah, thats what I’m curious about. I don’t know how much of this is formality and how much codified procedure, but it seems fairly plausible that this letter could be reasonably considered a subpoena - or at least, non-compliance could be considered contempt of congress.
I dont think it requires a full formal subpoena for something to be considered a legal order, so non-compliance with the terms in this letter could easily be held as contempt of congress. (the record preservation part, at least. The rest is a 1st amendment SCOTUS case just waiting to happen).
Edit:
So, kinda yeah…?
I’m fairly certain you need something more official than a signed letter, but I’m not a lawyer.
So consult a lawyer and then if legal destroy those records
What is a subpoena, if not a signed letter from an agent of congress directing either testimony or production of information? Its possible this letter in itself could be considered a subpoena, since it was delivered in an official capacity. The only formalisms I’m aware of are guidelines and convention, which don’t really mean anything anymore, and this letter seems to fit all the definitions I can find. I know it’s a dumb question to get hung up on since obviously “talk to a lawyer” is the #1 thing to do here, but still it’s an interesting question as to how legally binding an order in a form like this actually is.
A subpoena is a court order. Courts do not equal Congress. Separation of powers, and all that.
Edit: To clarify, courts don’t issue subpoenas, they sign off on them. Because this hasn’t been issued as a subpoena or signed off on by a court, it’s not a subpoena and cannot be construed as one. At least, within the bounds of the law. Which as we’ve seen don’t really matter at the moment.
Congress can absolutely issue subpoenas itself. Courts can rule on the legality, but they do not have to issue them on behalf of congress.ty for the edit I see what you meant now.I realised my comment was woefully undercooked shortly after posting it 😅 It’s worth noting though that issuance isn’t the standard to be met; if the court doesn’t sign off on a subpoena, it’s not legally a subpoena and can’t be enforced regardless of who issued it.
So I did a bit of a dive and this is what I found:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
So clarify with a lawyer and ensure that this action was taken under full legal authority and it likely was. I will edit my main comment to prevent the spread of misinformation
No need, subpoenas are obvious and in fact of they aren’t obvious they aren’t a subpoena. Almost every subpoena from Congress the Senate or otherwise will have some variation of “subpoena duces tecum” in the header or the phrase you are “ordered” or “commanded” to appear or provide whatever.
To Nixon https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/
Charles Mitchell https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/image/Pecora_MitchellSubpoena_display.htm
A legal order must be served and authorized by the courts. A legislator has no means to do this without a subpoena.
What? No it doesn’t - the courts can rule on a subpoena once given out, but congress absolutely can issue them itself
without certification from the courts.(edit: I’m actually unclear about this requirement, it’s quite possible you’re correct in that the courts must endorse an issued congressional subpoena) That’s a cornerstone of the separation of powers.Congress can issue a subpoena.
This is not a subpoena.
Nah, this is a letter from a single congressmen listing all his committes to make it look scary and official. Contempt of a congressmen isn’t contempt of Congress.
Isn’t that what a subpoena is? A letter from a duly authorized congressman or comittee directing production of information or testimony?
No subpoenas in Congress are by quorum so one name listed that isn’t ranking chair and with the proper verbiage is simply a scare tactic.
From Wikipedia:
So the question becomes is this Hawley or something the committee/subcommittee voted to send? It reads like Hawley to me, but IANAL.
Yeah, thats what I’m curious about. I don’t know how much of this is formality and how much codified procedure, but it seems fairly plausible that this letter could be reasonably considered a subpoena - or at least, non-compliance could be considered contempt of congress.