Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 36

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

“I know it is said that this power is necessary in aid of 
legislation.  I deny the necessity.  Convenient, at times, 
it  may  be;  but  necessary,  never.  We  do  not  drag  the
members of the Cabinet or the President to testify be-
fore a committee in aid of legislation; but I say, without 
hesitation, they can claim no immunity which does not
belong equally to the humblest citizen.”  Cong. Globe,
36th Cong., 1st Sess., 3007 (1860). 

Sumner also addressed the matter of Parliament’s powers, 
calling them “more or less inapplicable” because “[w]e live 
under a written Constitution, with certain specified powers;
and  all  these  are  restrained  by  the  tenth  amendment.” 
Ibid.  For Sumner, as for Adams, the power to issue legisla-
tive subpoenas to private parties was a “dangerous absurd-
ity” with no basis in the text or history of the Constitution. 
Ibid.3 

4 
When this Court first addressed a legislative subpoena,
it  refused  to  uphold  it.    After  casting  doubt  on  legislative
subpoenas generally,  the  Court  in  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson, 
103 U. S. 168, held that the subpoena at issue was unlawful
because it sought to investigate private conduct. 

In 1876, the House created a special Committee to inves-
tigate the failure of a major bank, which caused the loss of 
federal  funds  and  related  to  financial  speculation  in  the 
District of Columbia.  Id., at 171.  The Committee issued a 
subpoena to Kilbourn, an employee of the bank.  Id., at 172. 
When  he  refused  to  answer  questions  or  produce  docu-
ments, the House held him in contempt and arrested him. 
Id., at 173.  After his release, he sued the Speaker, several 

—————— 

3 I  note  as  well  that  Sumner  expressly  distinguished  legislative  sub-
poenas from subpoenas issued during “those inquiries which are in their 
nature preliminary to an impeachment.”  Cong. Globe, 36th Cong., 1st 
Sess., 3007 (1860).