House Republicans, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, are vowing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress and potentially have him arrested if he does not comply with a subpoena for tapes of Special Counsel Rob Hur's interview of President Biden.
The House Republican caucus is escalating its confrontation with Attorney General Merrick Garland, warning that he could face arrest if he does not comply with a congressional subpoena for tapes of Special Counsel Rob Hur's interview of President Biden.
House GOP Threatens to Imprison Attorney General Garland for Failing to Comply with Subpoena
Led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., a group of nine House Republicans announced that if Garland fails to deliver the tapes by Friday morning, they will press forward with a motion to hold him in "inherent contempt." This motion, if successful, would direct House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to call up the Sergeant-at-Arms to take Garland into custody.
"I want to make it clear, though, that this is of Garland's choosing," Luna said at a press conference on Wednesday. "Again, no one is above the law. And if he chooses to go down this path, then we will."
House GOP Threatens to Imprison Attorney General Garland for Failing to Comply with Subpoena
Inherent contempt is a constitutionally based authority that allows each house of Congress to unilaterally arrest and detain individuals found to be obstructing the legislature's duties. It is broader in scope than criminal contempt, which includes subpoena non-compliance, and can be used against actions that threaten either house's exercise of its legislative powers.
Luna's push to hold Garland in contempt is part of a larger effort by House Republicans to investigate the Biden administration's handling of various matters, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the ongoing criminal investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents.
House GOP Threatens to Imprison Attorney General Garland for Failing to Comply with Subpoena
The Department of Justice has declined to prosecute Garland, citing President Biden's executive privilege claims over the interview tapes. However, House Republicans argue that this is an unlawful obstruction of their constitutional authority to conduct oversight.
"Why would we do that when we have the direct ability to do it here in the House?" Luna said. "What you are seeing is the American people have a deep distrust in our ability to not only effectively govern, but also, too, they've lost faith within the Department of Justice and that we are truly an equal country."
House GOP Threatens to Imprison Attorney General Garland for Failing to Comply with Subpoena
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, compared the potential arrest of Garland to the recent arrest of a Houston citizen, Dr. Stanley Haim, who exposed alleged harmful gender transition practices on minors.
"That crime was performing harmful gender transition practices on minors," Crenshaw said. "He was indicted for alleged HIPAA violations. This demonstrates that Merrick Garland and this DOJ determination to target whistleblowers who oppose their ideology."
House Republicans have cited historical precedents for the use of inherent contempt, noting that it has been used by the House of Representatives more than 100 times since 1795 and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
"If we allow the Department of Justice and Attorney General Garland to dictate whether or not a congressional subpoena is enforced, we risk becoming subordinate to the executive branch," said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo. "That cannot happen."
Luna said she is confident she has enough votes from GOP colleagues to pass the resolution, pointing to those who joined her at the press conference. These members include Reps. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Russell Fry of South Carolina, Max Miller of Ohio, Ben Cline of Virginia, Richard McCormick of Georgia, and Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
Congress has not invoked its inherent contempt power since 1934, when it resulted in Washington lawyer William MacCracken getting a 10-day jail sentence for not sufficiently complying with a Senate subpoena. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which backed Congress' right to exercise its inherent contempt powers in its 1935 decision in Jurney v. MacCracken.
