The House is gearing up for a pivotal vote on Thursday regarding an inherent contempt resolution against Attorney General Merrick Garland. This rarely used legislative tool has been brought into play due to Garland’s refusal to turn over audio tapes of special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Joe Biden. This vote, spearheaded by Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, could mark a significant moment in congressional oversight and accountability.
The Resolution and Its Implications
Rep. Luna’s resolution, introduced as privileged on the House floor Wednesday night, seeks to fine Garland $10,000 per day until he complies with the congressional subpoena. This move comes after two Democratic efforts to table the measure late Wednesday failed. Despite initial reservations from House Republican leaders, Luna pressed on with her effort, receiving support from former President Donald Trump.
What is Inherent Contempt?
Inherent contempt is a power that Congress can use to enforce its subpoenas. According to the Congressional Research Service, this power can involve the arrest of the individual who fails to comply with a subpoena or a monetary fine. The latter could be advantageous as it avoids a court proceeding on habeas corpus grounds, as the contemnor would never be jailed or detained.
The Stakes of the Vote
The resolution’s success is uncertain, but House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed his support despite concerns about the inherent contempt power. A Department of Justice spokesperson has labeled the resolution unconstitutional, expressing confidence that their arguments would prevail in court.
House Republicans previously voted on June 12 to hold Garland in contempt of Congress over the Biden-Hur audio recordings, with only one Republican, Rep. David Joyce of Ohio, voting against it. Following this, the House Judiciary sued the Department of Justice on July 1 to obtain the audio. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Garland, citing a longstanding policy against prosecuting an attorney general. In response, Speaker Johnson stated that the House would move to enforce the subpoena in federal court.
Historical Context of Inherent Contempt
Inherent contempt has a storied history but has not been successfully executed in Congress since 1934. At that time, the Senate arrested William MacCracken Jr., a Washington aviation industry lawyer, for refusing to cooperate with a Senate investigation. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1935 that Congress had acted constitutionally.
In recent years, inherent contempt was last in the spotlight when House Democrats threatened to hold Trump administration officials accountable as they sought Trump’s tax records. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained in May 2019 that inherent contempt involves sending a subpoena, holding the individual in contempt if they don’t comply, and then fining them.
The Current Political Landscape
The impending vote has drawn significant attention, with House Republicans urging Luna not to bring it up for a vote this week. However, Luna’s determination, bolstered by Trump’s endorsement, has set the stage for a potentially contentious showdown.
Potential Outcomes
If the resolution passes, it could set a precedent for future congressional actions and significantly impact Garland’s position and the broader political landscape. On the other hand, if it fails, it may embolden the Justice Department’s stance and complicate future congressional oversight efforts.
Expert Opinions
Experts are divided on the potential impact of the resolution. Some believe it could reinforce Congress’s oversight powers, while others argue it may lead to prolonged legal battles without immediate results.
Kamy Akhavan, executive director of the USC Center for Political Future, commented, “The inherent contempt power is a double-edged sword. While it asserts congressional authority, it also risks significant legal and political pushback.”
Conclusion
As the House prepares to vote on the inherent contempt resolution against Attorney General Garland, the outcome remains uncertain. The resolution’s passage could reinforce congressional oversight powers, while its failure may embolden the Justice Department’s stance. Regardless of the outcome, this vote highlights the ongoing tensions between the legislative and executive branches and the lengths to which Congress may go to assert its authority.
