Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

1 
Shortly  before  Attorney  General  Harry  Daugherty  re-
signed in 1924, the Senate opened an investigation into his 
“ ‘alleged  failure’ ”  to  prosecute  monopolists,  the  protago-
nists  of  the  Teapot  Dome  scandal,  and  “ ‘many  others.’ ”  
McGrain, 273 U. S., at 151.  The investigating Committee 
issued  subpoenas  to  Daugherty’s  brother,  Mally,  who  re-
fused to comply and was arrested in Ohio for failure to tes-
tify.  Id., at 152–154.  Mally petitioned for a writ of habeas 
corpus,  and  the  District  Court  discharged  him,  based 
largely  on  Kilbourn.  Ex parte  Daugherty,  299  F.  620  (SD 
Ohio  1924).  The  Deputy  Sergeant  at  Arms  who  arrested
Mally directly appealed to this Court, which reversed. 

The  Court  concluded  that,  “[i]n  actual  legislative  prac-
tice[,] power to secure needed information by [investigating 
and compelling testimony] has long been treated as an at-
tribute  of  the  power  to  legislate.”  McGrain,  273  U. S.,  at 
161. The Court specifically found that “[i]t was so regarded 
in the British Parliament and in the Colonial legislatures 
before the American Revolution” and that “a like view has 
prevailed and been carried into effect in both houses of Con-
gress and in most of the state legislatures.”  Ibid.  But the 
authority cited by the Court did not support that proposi-
tion.  The Court cited the 1792 investigation of St. Clair’s
defeat, in which it appears no subpoena was issued, supra,
at 7–8, and the 1859 Senate investigation of John Brown’s 
raid on Harper’s Ferry, which led to an impassioned debate. 
273  U. S.,  at  162–164.    Thus,  for  the  reasons  explained
above,  the  examples  relied  on  in  McGrain  are  materially
different  from  issuing  a  legislative  subpoena  for  private, 
nonofficial documents.  See supra, at 7, 10–11.5 

—————— 

5 The  Court  also  cited  decisions  between  1858  and  1913  from  state 
courts  and  a  Canadian  court,  none  of  which  are  persuasive  evidence 
about  the  original  meaning  of  the  U. S.  Constitution.  McGrain,  273 
U. S., at 165–167.