Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s urgent request to enter a restraining order against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was rejected on April 11, the same day it was filed.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, turned down Bragg’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Jordan.
“The Court declines to enter the proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause,” Vyskocil said, noting that she hadn’t yet received several documents that were referenced in Bragg’s filings.
She ordered Jordan and other defendants in the case to respond to the lawsuit and scheduled a hearing for April 19.
On April 11, Bragg sued Jordan for allegedly infringing on state sovereignty. Jordan has subpoenaed a former Bragg deputy and demanded documents from Bragg’s office regarding the prosecution of former President Donald Trump, who was indicted by a grand jury after being presented with charges by the Democrat district attorney.
Jordan “has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters,” Bragg’s suit stated.
Bragg’s office also asked the court to enter an order that would block Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs, from enforcing the subpoena to former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz and prohibit Pomerantz from complying with it.
“The Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz marks the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has used its compulsory process to interfere with an ongoing state criminal case. The District Attorney is likely to succeed on the merits because the subpoena exceeds Congress’s authority and obstructs New York’s sovereign right to enforce its criminal law,” prosecutors said in a filing in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order.
“The subpoena would also irreparably injure the District Attorney by, among other things, interfering with an ongoing criminal case, compromising grand jury secrecy and the attorney-client privilege, and disrupting his preparation for trial. Finally, the balance of the equities and the public interest favor the District Attorney because the subpoena undercuts federalism principles and the fair administration of justice by injecting politics into a state criminal case.”
The defendants haven’t yet lodged any filings.
