Resolving Subpoena Disputes in the January 6 Investigation [Updated October 21, 2021] [open pdf - 777KB]
From the Document: "The inquiry conducted by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack [hyperlink] on the U.S. Capitol (Select Committee) has recently garnered headlines [hyperlink] not only for the Committee's extensive efforts to obtain information from a variety of public and private sources, but because at least one subpoenaed individual has not complied with the Select Committee's demands. On October 21, 2021, the House of Representatives approved a resolution [hyperlink] finding Stephen Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing [hyperlink] to comply with a subpoena for testimony and records. Because Bannon may not be the only party [hyperlink] to decline to answer all of the Select Committee's demands, this Sidebar addresses how, as a legal and legislative matter, disputes over the Select Committee's authority to access relevant information could unfold. Various parties may raise different arguments for withholding information from the Select Committee, ranging from claims that withholding information from the Committee is necessary to protect the former President's interest in executive privilege [hyperlink], to claims that the Committee's request infringes on individual constitutional rights such as the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, to claims that the subpoenas exceed the Committee's jurisdiction and authority. On Monday, October 18, former President Trump filed suit [hyperlink] challenging the validity of Select Committee demands for certain documents as constitutionally invalid and unenforceable. This Sidebar does not address the substantive merits of such arguments, though other CRS [Congressional Research Service] [hyperlink] products explore how arguments against the validity of congressional subpoenas have typically been addressed by the courts."
CRS Legal Sidebar, LSB10649
Congressional Research Service: https://crsreports.congress.gov/