Editing Contempt of Congress (section)

== Subpoenas ==
The Supreme Court affirmed in ''[[Watkins v. United States]]'' (1957) that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Warren |first1=Earl |title=WATKINS v. UNITED STATES |journal=United States Reports |date=1957 |volume=554 |page=576 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/178 |access-date=August 24, 2020}}</ref> Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. 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.

As announced in ''[[Wilkinson v. United States]]'' (1961),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/399/case.html|title=Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961)|website=justia.com|access-date=May 18, 2017}}</ref> a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in ''[[Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund]]'' (1975)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/421/491/case.html|title=Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491 (1975)|website=justia.com|access-date=May 18, 2017}}</ref> that congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the [[Speech or Debate clause]] which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash congressional subpoenas; even when [[Executive (government)|executive branch]] officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "[[political question]]s" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a congressional subpoena. For example, [[attorney–client privilege]] and information that is normally protected under the [[Trade Secrets Act]] do not need to be recognized.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/ec1203b2-a787-44ac-8344-5d5fab374ffa/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/11509b8b-df81-4db6-9e89-1d1b16c20856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf |title=Understanding Your Rights in Response to a Congressional Subpoena |author=<!--Not stated--> |access-date=24 April 2019}}</ref>