House Republicans were on the winning side of a judicial dispute with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who had filed a federal lawsuit after House Republicans attempted to use their subpoena power to investigate his recent indictment of former President Alvin Bragg.
That came on Wednesday, when Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that both the House Judiciary Committee and its chair Rep. Jim Jordan are well within their Congressional authority to subpoena Mark Pomerantz, the ex-District Attorney under DA Alvin Bragg.
In the ruling, Judge Vyskocil found the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena was issued with a “valid legislative purpose.” Further, she argued that it was not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate how Congress operates. Continuing, she wrote that “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law.”
That wasn’t Bragg’s only loss. After he filed the lawsuit, a judge in the Southern District of New York refused his request for a temporary restraining order. Mike Davis of The Federalist Society commented on that, saying, “Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is already off to a bad start for Bragg: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to even enter a temporary restraining order.”
In the lawsuit, DA Bragg said he’s taking legal action “in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.”
DA Bragg then said, “Representative Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary (the “Committee”), began a transparent campaign to intimidate and attack District Attorney Bragg, making demands for confidential documents and testimony from the District Attorney himself as well as his current and former employees and officials. Two days after Mr. Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts in New York State Supreme Court, Chairman Jordan and the Committee served a subpoena on Mark Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant District Attorney who participated in an investigation of Mr. Trump and his businesses. The subpoena seeks to compel Mr. Pomerantz to testify in a deposition on April 20, 2023. Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it. “
DA Bragg then alleged that Rep. Jordan has no constitutional power to demand oversight, saying, “He and his allies have stated they want the District Attorney to come to Capitol Hill to “explain” himself and to provide “a good argument” to Congress in support of his decision to investigate and prosecute Mr. Trump. And they have threatened that the House of Representatives will “hold Alvin Bragg . . . to account” for indicting Mr. Trump. Now, Chairman Jordan has subpoenaed one of the District Attorney’s former Special Assistants to interrogate him about his official prosecutorial activities. But subpoenaing a former line prosecutor to talk about an ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation is no less of an affront to state sovereignty than subpoenaing the District Attorney himself. Chairman Jordan claims he is seeking to conduct “oversight.” But he has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters. By definition, then, he has no legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena.“
"*" indicates required fields