Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
On April 17, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) filed an opposition to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lawsuit against him, the House Judiciary Committee, and former New York County Special Assistant District Attorney Mark Pomerantz. Over the past few weeks, Jordan and the committee have sent several letters to Bragg requesting documents and testimony regarding the indictment of former President Donald Trump in New York. On April 6, the committee issued a subpoena to Pomerantz, who was involved in the district attorney’s office’s investigation into Trump. Bragg filed a motion on April 11, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the committee’s subpoena and Pomerantz’s compliance with it. In his opposition, Jordan claims that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause gives him, the committee, and Pomerantz immunity from the lawsuit, and thus Bragg’s motion should be denied.
In the opposition, Jordan reiterated his and the committee’s claim that the ongoing investigation into Trump “could be politically motivated.” And, in describing the Judiciary Committee’s investigation of Bragg’s office’s investigation, Jordan notes that the committee is considering legislation that “would prohibit the use of federal forfeiture funds to investigate a current or former President.” Jordan also said that they are also considering legislation “that would expressly allow current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents to remove any criminal actions against them from state to federal court.”
You can read Jordan’s opposition here or below: