Quick Insights on Congressional Investigations

In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss how regulators view congressional investigations, including exploring both the advantages and the risks to the regulatory agency in these investigations.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore the important differences between House and Senate investigations.

In this episode, part two of a discussion with special guest Jessica Donlon, Michael and Andrew explore whether the minority can effectively conduct congressional oversight. Jessica is minority general counsel at the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew are joined by special guest Jessica Donlon, who currently serves as the minority general counsel at the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Together, they discuss how congressional investigations are conducted and explore both the differences and commonalities between Congress and the Executive Branch. They also delve into the tools each branch uses to assert its authority.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore whether Congress can obtain confidential materials provided to federal regulatory and enforcement agencies. They address why Congress might request these materials. They also discuss how the different agencies treat and protect these materials.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore the risks of turning over confidential, sensitive or proprietary information to Congress, as this material is vulnerable to public disclosure. However, there are practical considerations that create incentives for Members of Congress and their staff to protect documents provided in confidence. It is important to carefully consider the steps that need to be taken in order to safeguard confidential information in advance of production.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew examine the challenging situation that arises when companies or individuals face concurrent congressional and regulatory investigations. Managing multiple investigations simultaneously can introduce significant complexity because Congress and executive branch agencies conduct their investigations under different constitutional authorities, for different purposes, pursuant to different rules and procedures. This episode focuses on strategies to improve the overall outcome while managing often competing risks.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew delve into one of the least understood aspects of congressional investigations: the vital role that staffers play and best practices for engaging with them to help shape investigations from the outset.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew address an important question for witnesses appearing before a congressional committee: does the 5th Amendment protection apply in congressional investigations the same way it does in Article III courts? Although witnesses may be reluctant to avail themselves of the 5th Amendment, there are some situations where the risks of publicly testifying outweigh the possible negative connotation associated with exercising the privilege. In instances where the privilege is asserted, Michael and Andrew discuss the congressional committee's three likely responses.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore the political and legal risks of actively attempting to make a congressional investigation go away (an outcome that is rarely possible) and share strategies that may increase the chances that it will disappear on its own.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew share some high-level insights they have gleaned to help formulate a media strategy during a congressional investigation.

This episode adds to Michael and Andrew's prior analysis of the DC Circuit's decision in Maloney v. Murphy, which explored minority party members' authority to conduct congressional investigations. Regardless of whether the minority members have that authority, their requests for information related to a congressional investigation should be carefully evaluated. In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss practical considerations for private parties who receive these requests.

In this special episode, Michael and Andrew share their key observations and takeaways from the first high-profile investigative hearing of the 117th Congress, conducted by the US House Committee on Financial Services: “Game Stopped: Who Wins and Who Loses When Short Sellers, Social Media, and Retail Investors Collide?”

In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore the fairly novel—but not entirely unprecedented—situation involving an evenly divided US Senate, and how these dynamics may impact congressional investigations going forward.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew take a look at the DC Circuit's recent decision in Maloney v. Murphy, in which the key issue was whether eight members of the House Oversight Committee (not a majority) had standing to bring suit against the General Services Administration to comply with an information request that the members had initiated. Michael and Andrew summarize the decision and three practical impacts on congressional investigations. Maloney is the latest in a string of recent judicial decisions arising from congressional investigations. If you missed our episodes covering these earlier cases, you can view them here: “Does the attorney-client privilege apply in congressional investigations?” and “Is a congressional subpoena enforceable?”

In this episode, Michael and Andrew delve into the consequences of lying to Congress from a legal and practical perspective. Beyond the obvious situations that involve an outright lie during the course of a congressional investigation, there are also legal ramifications for concealing material facts or knowingly submitting documents that contain false statements. Michael and Andrew walk through these risk areas and how to guard against them in the course of a congressional investigation.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss the DC Circuit's recent decision in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, where the court was asked to decide whether a congressional subpoena is enforceable. Although a seemingly straightforward question, this issue has been litigated multiple times and remains unsettled. Michael and Andrew examine the preliminary questions addressed by the court, the current status of the case, and the practical takeaways for private companies and individuals.

The differences between trials and congressional hearings are vast. In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss the key differences, including the format, structure and purpose of each, and how the distinctive aspects of congressional hearings impact the preparation of witnesses.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew examine the factors that contribute to the expedited time frame in which most congressional investigations are conducted and, importantly, what this means for companies and individuals under investigation.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew examine the factors that contribute to the expedited time frame in which most congressional investigations are conducted and, importantly, what this means for companies and individuals under investigation.

In follow-up to our prior episode exploring the broad limits on Congress' power to investigate, Michael and Andrew now turn their focus to when and how courts will intervene if Congress has exceeded those limits and practical considerations to keep in mind should this situation arise.

In follow-up to our prior episode exploring the broad limits on Congress' power to investigate, Michael and Andrew now turn their focus to when and how courts will intervene if Congress has exceeded those limits and practical considerations to keep in mind should this situation arise.

The congressional authority to investigate is far-reaching, but there are three broad limits on Congress' power. In this episode, Michael and Andrew explore these limits—constitutional, statutory and procedural—and how they work in practice.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss the types of harm that can arise from a congressional investigation—focusing on those that have the most costly consequences for the target.

In this episode, Michael and Andrew discuss the types of harm that can arise from a congressional investigation—focusing on those that have the most costly consequences for the target.

In our second episode, Michael and Andrew highlight mistakes they have witnessed in congressional investigations, one of the most significant being the target's failure to take into account both the “congressional” and the “investigation” aspects of the matter.

In our first episode of Quick Insights on Congressional Investigations, Michael and Andrew will explore the key differences – and similarities – between Republicans and Democrats in conducting congressional inquiries, a timely juxtaposition to explore in the week prior to the US presidential and congressional elections.