© 2025 Connecticut Public

FCC Public Inspection Files:
WEDH · WEDN · WEDW · WEDY
WEDW-FM · WNPR · WPKT · WRLI-FM
Public Files Contact · ATSC 3.0 FAQ
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Supreme Court will hear a subpoena case that — surprise — Trump and Biden agree on

Joe Biden and Donald Trump, seen here during a presidential debate in Cleveland in 2020, are on the same side of this Supreme Court argument involving congressional subpoenas.
Morry Gash
/
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
Joe Biden and Donald Trump, seen here during a presidential debate in Cleveland in 2020, are on the same side of this Supreme Court argument involving congressional subpoenas.

The U.S. Supreme Court is once again dipping its toes into a legal conflict between congressional investigators and the executive branch. Only this time, the former Trump administration and the current Biden administration are on the same side.

On Monday the court agreed to review a case that tests what limits exist on congressional subpoenas for executive branch documents. It will hear the case next fall.

The case dates back to then-citizen Donald Trump's 2013 agreement with the General Services Administration to lease the Old Post Office Building in Washington, D.C., for conversion into the Trump International Hotel.

Though candidate Trump said he would put his private assets into a blind trust, he didn't do that, and soon into his tenure as president, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee began to investigate what they viewed as potential conflicts of interest in the way the new leadership of the GSA was managing the lease.

When the GSA rejected requests for documents, 17 Democratic members of the 45-person committee turned to an obscure law enacted in 1928 that allows seven members of a House committee to go to court to enforce its power to get agency records and other information.

That is not the usual way that information is subpoenaed by legislative committees. House committees, for instance, usually require a majority of a committee or the chairman of a committee to issue a subpoena. But back in 2017 when Trump took office, the Democrats were in the minority, so the 1928 statute was a workaround for those on the committee seeking the documents.

The case dragged on until the final days of the Trump administration when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 that the GSA had to comply with the subpoena.

More legal steps followed, including a majority vote by the full appeals court not to reconsider. But significantly, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi — who by then had become House speaker — never joined the lawsuit. As one Democratic source put it, "No party leader wants to allow a fringe group to subpoena documents without the support of the leadership as a whole."

Perhaps equally significant, when the full appeals court declined to reconsider the panel's decision, there were four dissenters — all among the appeals court's most conservative members. They said that any subpoena right is an institutional right, not a right belonging to individual members of the House.

The Biden administration, facing aggressive subpoenas from a Republican-controlled House, is citing those dissenting opinions. The administration contends that congressional requests for information from executive agencies have traditionally been negotiated between the two branches.

Beyond that, it argues that congressional subpoenas for information are institutional and cannot be asserted by individual members of the House or Senate.

Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition.

The independent journalism and non-commercial programming you rely on every day is in danger.

If you’re reading this, you believe in trusted journalism and in learning without paywalls. You value access to educational content kids love and enriching cultural programming.

Now all of that is at risk.

Federal funding for public media is under threat and if it goes, the impact to our communities will be devastating.

Together, we can defend it. It’s time to protect what matters.

Your voice has protected public media before. Now, it’s needed again. Learn how you can protect the news and programming you depend on.

SOMOS CONNECTICUT is an initiative from Connecticut Public, the state’s local NPR and PBS station, to elevate Latino stories and expand programming that uplifts and informs our Latino communities. Visit CTPublic.org/latino for more stories and resources. For updates, sign up for the SOMOS CONNECTICUT newsletter at ctpublic.org/newsletters.

SOMOS CONNECTICUT es una iniciativa de Connecticut Public, la emisora local de NPR y PBS del estado, que busca elevar nuestras historias latinas y expandir programación que alza y informa nuestras comunidades latinas locales. Visita CTPublic.org/latino para más reportajes y recursos. Para noticias, suscríbase a nuestro boletín informativo en ctpublic.org/newsletters.

The independent journalism and non-commercial programming you rely on every day is in danger.

If you’re reading this, you believe in trusted journalism and in learning without paywalls. You value access to educational content kids love and enriching cultural programming.

Now all of that is at risk.

Federal funding for public media is under threat and if it goes, the impact to our communities will be devastating.

Together, we can defend it. It’s time to protect what matters.

Your voice has protected public media before. Now, it’s needed again. Learn how you can protect the news and programming you depend on.

Related Content