In a move highlighting ongoing tensions between Congress and the Department of Justice, House Republicans are advocating for a rarely-used and archaic legislative tool to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable. This push follows allegations that Garland has not faced prosecution for actions comparable to those that led to the indictment of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Both Garland and Hunter Biden are accused of the same violations that resulted in Bannon’s contempt charges, raising concerns of a double standard in the justice system under the Biden administration.
Earlier this month, House Republicans voted to hold Garland in “criminal contempt,” referring the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. However, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute, prompting Republicans to escalate their efforts through the courts to obtain audio recordings related to President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
Leading the charge is freshman Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who is proposing a resolution to hold Garland in “inherent contempt of Congress.” This procedure, which hasn’t been used by Congress in nearly a century, could potentially lead to the arrest and incarceration of Garland by the House Sergeant at Arms. The last significant invocation of inherent contempt dates back to the early 20th century, making this a historic confrontation between two branches of the U.S. government.
Representative Luna’s resolution aims to compel Garland to provide the requested audio recordings. She plans to force a vote on Friday morning, though it faces significant opposition from both sides of the aisle and is unlikely to pass. Should the resolution succeed, it would empower the House Sergeant at Arms to arrest Garland and bring him before Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1821 that Congress possesses the authority to punish individuals held in contempt, even though this power is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. This ruling, upheld in subsequent cases, affirms Congress’s ability to function effectively by enforcing compliance with its subpoenas. In 2019, Democrats considered using inherent contempt to enforce subpoenas against Trump administration officials, including then-Attorney General William Barr, but ultimately decided against it. At the time, there was also discussion of imposing fines rather than pursuing arrest and imprisonment.
The current push for inherent contempt reflects broader frustrations among Republicans, who argue that Garland and Hunter Biden have not faced the same legal consequences as Steve Bannon. Bannon was held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena related to the investigation of the January 6 Capitol riot. The perceived disparity in treatment fuels claims of a double standard within the justice system.
House Republicans are now seeking judicial intervention to compel the DOJ to take action against Garland. This legal battle underscores the complexities and challenges inherent in conflicts between legislative and executive powers. The outcome could set a precedent for how such disputes are resolved in the future.
As these issues continue to unfold, it remains to be seen whether Representative Luna’s resolution will gain the necessary support to pass and what impact it will have on the ongoing friction between Congress and the Department of Justice. The situation serves as a reminder of the delicate balance of power in the U.S. government and the mechanisms available to uphold accountability within its branches.
