Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

6 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tures.  Amici supporting the Committees resist this conclu-
sion, but the examples they cite materially differ from the 
legislative subpoenas at issue here. 

First,  amici  cite  investigations  in  which  legislatures
sought  to  compel  testimony  from  government  officials  on 
government  matters.  The  subjects  included  military  af-
fairs, taxes, government finances, and the judiciary.  Potts, 
Power  of  Legislative  Bodies  To  Punish  for  Contempt,  74
U. Pa.  L. Rev.  691,  708,  709,  710,  716–717  (1926)  (Potts);
see also E. Eberling, Congressional Investigations: A Study 
of the Origin and Development of the Power of Congress To 
Investigate and Punish for Contempt 18 (1928) (Eberling).
But the information sought in these examples was official,
not private.  Underscoring this distinction, at least one rev-
olutionary-era State Constitution permitted the legislature
to “call for all public or official papers and records, and send 
for persons, whom they may judge necessary in the course 
of their inquiries, concerning affairs relating to the public 
interest.”  Md. Const., Art. X (1776) (emphasis added). 

Second,  18th-century  legislatures  conducted  nonlegisla-
tive  investigations.  For  example,  the  New  York  colonial
legislature tasked one committee with investigating a nui-
sance complaint and gave it the “power to send for persons, 
papers and records.”  Eberling 18; see also id., at 19 (inves-
tigation  of  a  government  contract  obtained  by  alleged 
wrongdoing); Potts 716 (investigation of armed resistance).
But to describe this category is to distinguish it.  Here, the 
Committees assert only a legislative purpose.

Third,  colonial  and  state  legislatures  investigated  and 
punished insults, libels, and bribery of members.  For ex-
ample,  the  Pennsylvania  colonial  assembly  investigated 
“injurious charges, and slanderous Aspersions against the 
Conduct of the late Assembly” made by two individuals.  Id., 
at 710 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at 
717; Eberling 20–21.  But once again, to describe this cate-