Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 42

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

dent  for  issuing  legislative  subpoenas  for  private  docu-
ments from 18th-century colonial or state practice. And it
identifies no founding-era legislative subpoenas for private
documents.6
  Since McGrain, the Court has pared back Congress’ au-
thority  to  compel  testimony  and  documents.  It  has  held 
that certain convictions of witnesses for contempt of Con-
gress violated the Fifth Amendment.  See Watkins v. United 
States, 354 U. S. 178 (1957) (Due Process Clause); Quinn v. 
United  States,  349  U. S.  155  (1955)  (Self-Incrimination
Clause); see also Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 
153–154 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting).  It has also affirmed 
the reversal of a conviction on the ground that the Commit-
tee  lacked  authority  to  issue  the  subpoena.   See  United 
States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41 (1953).  And today, it creates
a new four-part, nonexhaustive test for cases involving the 
President.  Ante, at 18–20.  Rather than continue our trend 
of trying to compensate for McGrain, I would simply decline
to apply it in these cases because it is readily apparent that
the  Committees  have  no  constitutional  authority  to  sub-
poena private, nonofficial documents. 

III 
If the Committees wish to investigate alleged wrongdoing 
by the President and obtain documents from him, the Con-
stitution  provides  Congress  with  a  special  mechanism  for 

—————— 

6 The  Court  further  observed  that  Congress  has  long  exercised  the
power to hold nonmembers in contempt for reasons other than failure to
comply with a legislative subpoena.  McGrain, supra, at 168–169.  The 
earliest case it cited, Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 (1821), relied on 
arguments  about  Congress’  power  of  self-protection,  id.,  at  226–227. 
Members of Congress defending the use of contempt for these other pur-
poses made similar arguments about self-protection.  5 Annals of Cong. 
181–182 (1795) (Rep. W. Smith); id., at 189 (Rep. I. Smith).  But the fail-
ure to respond to a subpoena does not pose a fundamental threat to Con-
gress’ ability to exercise its powers.