Last week, the Georgia state Senate authorized a sweeping investigation of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, continuing a national trend of increased state legislative investigations. Although state-level investigations continue to lag far behind congressional investigations, state legislatures appear to be replicating what we see on the federal level with increasing frequency. This emerging trend of state legislative investigations presents growing—and significant—risks across the political spectrum.
As adopted by the Georgia Senate, the Abrams-focused resolution expanded the existing authority of a Special Committee on Investigations, which was previously authorized to investigate alleged misconduct by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. In addition to permitting the Committee to take witness testimony under oath, including through depositions, the resolution empowered the Committee to issue subpoenas for testimony or documents and “undertake such actions as may be necessary to enforce such subpoenas in cases of refusal to obey.”
In authorizing the Abrams investigation, the Georgia Senate reasserted its “inherent power and authority to conduct investigations into any matter relevant to” specified legislative functions, citing case law and statutory authorities, such as a provision of Georgia law that gives legislators investigatory powers “as complete and absolute as those granted to the Attorney General.” Notably, after District Attorney Willis earlier declined to appear before the Special Committee at a hearing in September 2024, a Georgia state court upheld the Committee’s authority to compel testimony in a decision issued in late December.
As we have previously explored, this assertive display of investigative power is not extraordinary. Indeed, just as congressional committees maintain broad authority to investigate matters within their legislative jurisdiction, so too do many state legislatures. Although the precise authorities vary from state to state, legislative oversight committees generally maintain some ability to seek testimony or documents, including through compulsory process; hold public hearings; and penalize noncompliance with investigative demands. While witnesses retain certain rights and privileges, and investigatory authority is not unlimited, state legislature investigations are nonetheless a growing source of risk for private parties.
Beyond Georgia, in chambers controlled by both Republican and Democratic legislators, many states have permanent legislative oversight functions. For example, both chambers of the New York State Legislature have standing investigations committees, with lawmakers and staff well-versed in the law and strategy of fact development. New York law likewise permits the chair or vice chair of any legislative committee to issue unilaterally a subpoena for documents or testimony. Similarly, in Florida, all standing and select committees of the legislature may, “whenever required,” subpoena witnesses and documents.
With lawmakers on Capitol Hill continuing to demonstrate the significant political and policy implications of a well-orchestrated investigative agenda, ambitious state legislators will no doubt seek to exercise and expand their own investigative powers. An assessment of potential liability and reputational risks associated with a state legislature investigation requires understanding the legal and practical idiosyncrasies in the state, as well as how the state’s procedures—and the respondent’s obligations—interact with federal law. As state legislative investigations continue to expand in both scope and significance, this expertise is more critical than ever.