Update: On Thursday, hours before Pomerantz scheduled testimony to the committee, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary administrative hold on the subpoena’s return date to allow the court to review Bragg’s application for a permanent hold on the subpoena while the lower court’s decision is being appealed. The appeals court indicated that the administrative stay does not indicate the court’s position on the merit of Bragg’s case. The court instructed the parties to complete court filings on a permanent stay on the ruling on Saturday.
NEW YORK—A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on April 19 that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), can subpoena a former prosecutor who worked for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ordered that the congressional panel has the authority to become involved in the investigation of former President Donald Trump.
Specifically, Vyskocil granted—over Bragg’s objection—that Jordan could subpoena Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in Bragg’s office, for his testimony related to the DA’s investigation of Trump.
Pomerantz could be subject to criminal liabilities by testifying in Congress, one of Bragg’s attorneys said during the hearing on April 19. Meanwhile, he also could be held in contempt of Congress if he doesn’t cooperate with Congress’s requests, his lawyers said in an April 17 filing.
The April 19 order came after an hour-long verbal clash between Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., counsel for Bragg, and House general counsel Matthew Berry in the Southern District Court of New York. It gave the Judiciary Committee’s lawmakers a victory in their legal clash with Bragg, which began when Bragg sued the committee, as well as Pomerantz, to stop the panel from enforcing the subpoena on Pomerantz.
In her order, Vyskocil ruled in favor of the congressional lawmakers, affirming their stance that the subpoena they issued on Pomerantz serves legitimate legislative purposes and is thus protected from lawsuits by the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause protects federal legislators from lawsuits for actions that serve a valid legislative purpose.
By Gary Bai
