A pledge by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., to pursue what she called “signature cases” against Trump administration officials is drawing warnings from legal experts who say the remarks could hand those same officials grounds to fight congressional subpoenas in court.
Slotkin, speaking at a University of Chicago event on Oct. 13, said she wants Democrats to send a “deterrence message” to young Americans considering jobs in the Trump administration, suggesting graduates might think twice for fear of “buying myself a ton of problems.”
Abhishek Kambli, a former deputy associate attorney general in the Trump Justice Department and now a partner at Holtzman Vogel, told Fox News Digital that if Democrats retake either chamber of Congress and move to issue subpoenas, Slotkin’s comments could be used against them.
“If they just throw in boilerplate language that this is for legislative purpose, anyone challenging those subpoenas will have that entire record to demonstrate that it’s anything but that,” Kambli said.
What the Supreme Court said
Congress has broad power to investigate, subpoena witnesses and review government operations, but the Supreme Court has held lawmakers may not wield that power solely to punish individuals.
That limit was tested in 2020 in Trump v. Mazars, a case arising from House Democrats’ attempt to obtain Trump’s personal financial records. The Court set out a four-factor test for lower courts to weigh: whether Congress has a legitimate legislative need for the records, whether the request is sufficiently narrow, whether the information is available elsewhere, and what burden the subpoena places on the president. The justices sent the case back to lower courts without resolving whether the subpoenas met that standard.
“So it’s not enough just to tack on a legislative purpose,” Kambli said, arguing courts must look past Congress’ stated justification to assess whether a demand is constitutionally sound. He said public statements by lawmakers could become evidence in such challenges, telling Fox News Digital that courts “don’t have to bury their head in the sand” and can weigh comments “in terms of how they fit into the broader comments that they made.”
Groundwork already underway
House Democrats are preparing investigations into Trump’s family business dealings and possible conflicts of interest should they win back the majority. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has said he would expand his inquiry into donors financing Trump’s White House ballroom if Democrats retake the Senate.
A competing view
Not every legal scholar agrees the remarks carry much weight. Michael Morley, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, said courts generally accept that partisan motives are baked into congressional investigations and are reluctant to strike down subpoenas over provocative political statements.
“I don’t think that the fact that there might be partisan motivations for a congressional investigation would ultimately be a valid basis for refusing to comply with a subpoena,” Morley said.
Morley added that the heightened standard from Trump v. Mazars applied specifically to subpoenas for a president’s personal records, and that extending it to subpoenas against other administration officials would be “a stretch.” Still, he acknowledged Slotkin’s comments amount to “bad atmospherics” that could make judges “marginally less likely” to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt when a subpoena’s legal footing is already shaky.
Slotkin responds
Slotkin has pushed back on claims that she is targeting Americans simply for working in a Republican administration. She told CNN she was referring to officials who break the law or misuse taxpayer funds, calling the backlash “manufactured outrage.”
Kambli countered that the damage from congressional probes doesn’t require a conviction, or even charges, to take a toll.
“There is the idea that the process is the punishment, and there is no doubt that some members of Congress intend to use the process to bankrupt people that can’t afford legal representation,” Kambli said.
He added that while Trump’s Justice Department is unlikely to prosecute administration officials over criminal contempt referrals from a Democratic Congress, that calculus could change under a future Democratic administration.
Morley, too, raised concern about the chilling effect on rank-and-file government employees who may not have resources to mount a legal defense. “That’s just not how we want our political disputes to be handled,” he said.
Add comment