Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in a rare case that has the potential to contribute significantly to the case law concerning congressional investigations. It is uncommon for a federal court to have an opportunity to rule on a congressional subpoena – congressional subpoenas generally cannot be challenged in court unless the recipient defies Congress and Congress votes to hold the recipient in contempt. Most private sector companies simply cannot endure the bad publicity and reputational damage that accompanies a congressional contempt proceeding.  Backpage, an online forum for classified advertisements that includes advertisements for adult services, and its CEO Carl Ferrer apparently are not swayed by such concerns.

For more than a year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been conducting an investigation of Backpage as part of an inquiry into human trafficking. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, advertisements on Backpage are associated with “a majority of the child sex trafficking cases being reported” to the organization.

After conducting an interview of Backpage’s general counsel in June 2015, the Subcommittee subpoenaed Backpage for documents in July 2015. Almost immediately, Backpage objected to the subpoena on First Amendment grounds. After further back and forth, the Subcommittee subpoenaed Backpage’s CEO Carl Ferrer for a narrower set of documents and ordered him to appear at a hearing on November 19, 2015.  Backpage produced a limited set of documents to the Subcommittee, but it continued to object to a further response on First Amendment grounds.  Ferrer did not appear at the November hearing, and the Subcommittee held a hearing with an empty chair before it – another rarity in congressional investigations.  The Subcommittee approved a resolution to enforce its subpoena, and the resolution was adopted by the full Senate in March 2016.

In its ruling last week, the District Court found for the Subcommittee, rejecting four defenses raised by Ferrer.

First, the court addressed Ferrer’s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the Senate sought to enforce only three of the eight requests contained in the subpoena. Ferrer’s argument was based on a unique aspect of the statute authorizing the Senate to enforce its subpoena in court – the statute states that the court may not “modify” the subpoena. In Ferrer’s view, selective enforcement equates to modification.  The court disagreed, stating that the statute does not constrain the Subcommittee’s ability to seek partial enforcement of its subpoenas.  Therefore, the court was enforcing, unmodified, those parts of the subpoena brought before it by the Senate.

Second, the court rejected Ferrer’s argument that the subpoena was not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose. Under Supreme Court precedents, Congress has the power to investigate any subject on which it can legislate. Given that Congress can legislate on sex trafficking and the internet, and Congress has previously legislated on internet publishers’ immunity for statements of third parties, the court easily concluded that the subpoena was related to a legitimate legislative purpose.

Third, the court examined Ferrer’s First Amendment defenses and concluded that they did not protect him from complying with the subpoena. Ferrer claimed that the Subcommittee’s subpoena encroached on his First Amendment rights, sought to punish disfavored speech, and chilled his exercise of his First Amendment rights. The court was unconvinced.  The court was most critical of Ferrer’s attempted use of the First Amendment to shield Backpage from even searching for materials in response to the subpoena, determining which of the documents reflect speech protected by the First Amendment, and explaining the specific manner in which the subpoena would intrude on First Amendment rights.  The court concluded that Ferrer’s position that “any responsive document that has not been produced contains constitutionally-protected information that no governmental need could possibly overcome” is “untenable and without legal support.”

Finally, the court rejected Ferrer’s claim that the investigation violated his due process rights by being ill-defined in scope and shifting in focus. The court described these arguments as “undeveloped,” “devoid of legal support,” and “unclear.”

The court ordered Ferrer to comply with the Subcommittee’s subpoena within ten days.

Instead of producing the subpoenaed documents, this week, Ferrer appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and simultaneously sought to postpone his compliance with the subpoena while the appeal is pending. In his motion to stay compliance with the subpoena, Ferrer focused on his First Amendment arguments: The District Court “misapprehends the nature of Mr. Ferrer’s First Amendment claims and undervalued the constitutional interests at stake,” the filing said.

Depending on the outcome of the appeal, this case may contribute significantly to the case law concerning congressional investigations and the enforceability of congressional subpoenas.

Litigation to enforce a congressional subpoena against a private sector company or individual is rare. According to the Senate Legal Counsel’s filings in the case, the Senate has sought to enforce a subpoena under its civil enforcement authority only five times, with the last enforcement proceeding occurring in 1994. This case provides an opportunity for the appellate court to consider aspects of the statute that are rarely addressed in litigation, such as Ferrer’s argument regarding the statute’s limitation on courts modifying a subpoena.

Practitioners and scholars generally consider jurisdictional challenges to congressional investigations to be foreclosed by the modern scope of Congress’s legislative authority. Because Congress’s legislative reach is so broad, and its investigative authority is coextensive with its legislative authority, Congress can investigate practically anything, the reasoning goes. The appellate court may have an opportunity to address these issues if Ferrer continues to argue that the subpoena is not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose.

Finally, and potentially most significant, it appears that the D.C. Circuit will have an opportunity to address the limitations that constitutional protections place on congressional investigations. Although Congress takes a dim view of many privileges and protections, including the attorney-client privilege and executive privilege, Congress readily acknowledges that it is bound by constitutional limitations such as the First Amendment. There is very little recent case law addressing constitutional protections in the context of congressional investigations, even as the Supreme Court’s views on the First Amendment and other constitutional rights have evolved over recent decades.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Brian D. Smith Brian D. Smith

Brian Smith assists clients with challenging public policy matters that combine legal and political risks and opportunities.

Brian represents companies and individuals facing high-profile and high-risk congressional investigations and hearings, and other criminal, civil, and internal investigations that present legal, political, and public…

Brian Smith assists clients with challenging public policy matters that combine legal and political risks and opportunities.

Brian represents companies and individuals facing high-profile and high-risk congressional investigations and hearings, and other criminal, civil, and internal investigations that present legal, political, and public relations risks. He assists companies and executives responding to formal and informal inquiries from Congress and executive branch agencies for documents, information, and testimony. He has extensive experience preparing CEOs and other senior executives to testify before challenging congressional oversight hearings.

Brian develops and executes government relations initiatives for clients seeking actions by Congress and the executive branch. He has led strategic efforts resulting in legislation enacted by Congress and official actions and public engagement at the most senior levels of the U.S. government. He has significant experience in legislative drafting and has prepared multiple bills enacted by Congress and legislation passed in nearly every state legislature.

Prior to joining Covington, Brian served in the White House as Assistant to the Special Counsel to President Clinton. He handled matters related to the White House’s response to investigations, including four independent counsel investigations, a Justice Department task force investigation, two major oversight investigations by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and several other congressional oversight investigations.

Brian is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Robert Kelner Robert Kelner

Robert Kelner is the chair of Covington’s nationally recognized Election and Political Law Practice Group.  He counsels clients on the full range of political law compliance matters, and defends clients in civil and criminal law enforcement investigations concerning political activity. He also leads

Robert Kelner is the chair of Covington’s nationally recognized Election and Political Law Practice Group.  He counsels clients on the full range of political law compliance matters, and defends clients in civil and criminal law enforcement investigations concerning political activity. He also leads the firm’s prominent congressional investigations practice.

Rob’s political law compliance practice covers federal and state campaign finance, lobbying disclosure, pay to play, and government ethics laws. His expertise includes the Federal Election Campaign Act, Lobbying Disclosure Act, Ethics in Government Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

He is also a leading authority on the arcane rules governing political contributions and marketing activities by registered investment advisers and municipal securities dealers.

Rob’s political law clients include numerous multinational corporations, many of which are household names.  He counsels major banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, trade associations, PACs, political party committees, candidates, lobbying firms, and politically active high-net-worth individuals. He has represented the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and National Republican Senatorial Committee.  He also advises Presidential political appointees on the complex vetting and confirmation process.

As a partner in the firm’s White Collar Defense & Investigations practice group, Rob regularly defends clients in congressional investigations before virtually every major congressional investigation committee.  He also defends corporations and others in investigations by the Federal Election Commission, the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, federal Offices of Inspector General, and the House & Senate Ethics Committees.  He has prepared many CEOs and corporate executives for testimony before congressional investigation panels. He regularly leads the Practicing Law Institute’s training program on congressional investigations for in-house lawyers.  In addition, he is frequently retained to lead internal investigations and compliance reviews for major corporate clients concerning lobbying and campaign finance law issues.

Rob has appeared as a commentator on political law matters on The PBS News Hour, CNBC, Fox News, and NPR, and he has been quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Legal Times, Roll Call, The Hill, Politico, USA Today, Financial Times, and other publications.

Rob is Chairman of Covington’s Professional Responsibility Committee and a General Counsel of the firm.  He also currently serves as Chairman of the District of Columbia Bar’s Legislative Practice Committee, and he previously was appointed by the President of the American Bar Association to serve on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Election Law.

Photo of Derek Lawlor Derek Lawlor

Derek Lawlor is of counsel in the firm’s Election and Political Law Practice Group. Derek advises corporations, nonprofit organizations, and trade associations on compliance with federal and state lobbying, campaign finance, and government ethics laws.

Clients regularly rely on Derek to assist with…

Derek Lawlor is of counsel in the firm’s Election and Political Law Practice Group. Derek advises corporations, nonprofit organizations, and trade associations on compliance with federal and state lobbying, campaign finance, and government ethics laws.

Clients regularly rely on Derek to assist with their complex questions related to activities and projects that implicate all of these laws. Derek advises federal and state candidates and super PACs on campaign finance and disclosure issues. Derek also represents clients in government investigations and inquiries conducted by the Federal Election Commission, Office of Congressional Ethics, and Congressional Committees and Commissions.

Derek’s representation of clients covers the full range of important political law issues that they face, including:

  • Advising clients on their registration and reporting obligations under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act, as well as state and local lobbying laws, including helping client organizations evaluate the core questions that arise in this space:
    • Has the organization or any of its employees triggered lobbying registration requirements?
    • What lobbying income, expenditures, issues, or contacts need to be disclosed on lobbying reports?
    • Does procurement or sales activity directed at governmental entities trigger lobbying registration in a particular jurisdiction?
    • What are the best practices for designing a lobbying compliance program?
  • Assisting corporations and trade associations with the establishment and operation of connected PACs, which frequently entails evaluating the following questions:
    • What steps does the organization need to take to start up and register a connected PAC?
    • What are the ongoing reporting requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) or state campaign finance laws?
    • Which employees can the organization solicit and what are the rules on conducting a solicitation campaign?
    • What are the limits on making contributions to federal, state, or local candidates, party committees, or other political committees?
    • What are the best practices for designing a PAC compliance program?
  • Evaluating whether a client’s proposed activities might trigger registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), and if so, advising on registration and ongoing reporting obligations;
  • Advising federal and state candidates, super PACs, and other political committees on compliance with FECA, FEC regulations and reporting requirements, state campaign finance laws, rules on disclaimers placed on communications, and other political law compliance topics;
  • Counseling individuals who are entering government service, including Senate-confirmed positions, on the various financial disclosure requirements, conflicts of interest considerations, and other ethics law issues they may face;
  • Helping clients establish politically active or policy-focused nonprofit organizations, and proving ongoing support related to tax and political law issues that might arise from their activities; and
  • Advising corporations, nonprofits, and individuals on their proposed donations to candidates, political committees, and other politically active outside groups.

Derek is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Prior to receiving his law degree, Derek worked in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives.