Editing Contempt of Congress (section)

=== Inherent contempt ===
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the [[Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives|Sergeant-at-Arms of the House]] or [[Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate|Senate]], brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).<ref>{{cite web |last=Garvey |first=Todd |title=Congress's Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=10|date=12 May 2017 |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf |access-date=30 April 2019 }}</ref>

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the [[United States Postmaster General|U.S. Postmaster]].  After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by [[Vice-President of the United States|Vice President]] [[John Nance Garner]], in his capacity as [[President of the Senate#United States|President of the Senate]]), [[William P. MacCracken Jr.]], a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/historicalmaterials/other/maccrack.htm|title=William P. Mac Cracken Jr. Papers<!-- Bot generated title -->|website=ecommcode2.com|access-date=May 18, 2017|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421135250/http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/historicalmaterials/other/maccrack.htm|archive-date=April 21, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

MacCracken filed a petition of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case ''[[Jurney v. MacCracken]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/125/case.html|title=Jurney v. MacCracken 294 U.S. 125 (1935)|website=justia.com|access-date=May 18, 2017|archive-date=August 11, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811095052/http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/125/case.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/5182000_pjl8.htm|title=This is the Statement of SEN. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, before the Senate Judiciary Committee<!-- Bot generated title -->|website=senate.gov|access-date=May 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170318043216/https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/5182000_pjl8.htm|archive-date=March 18, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The last attempt by the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] to use this inherent contempt process was on July 11, 2024, when they voted on a resolution that could have held [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Merrick Garland]] in inherent contempt of Congress. The resolution would have imposed a fine of $10,000 per day on Garland for defying a congressional subpoena until he handed over audio of former special counsel [[Robert Hur|Robert Hur’s]] interview with President Joe Biden.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Carney |first1=Jordain |title=House GOP fails to pass effort to fine Garland $10,000 per day |url=https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/11/congress/house-gop-flops-on-inherent-contempt-00167562 |publisher=Politico |access-date=23 September 2024 |date=11 July 2024}}</ref> This attempt fell short in a 204 to 210 vote by the House of Representatives and Garland was not found in inherent contempt, with four Republicans voting with all Democrats to oppose the measure.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hubbard |first1=Kaia |title=Republican effort to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress falls short |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merrick-garland-inherent-contempt-of-congress/ |publisher=CBS News |access-date=23 September 2024 |date=11 July 2024}}</ref>