Judge pauses court battle over House committee subpoenas

The House Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department agreed Wednesday to stay a trial on congressional subpoenas rather than allow Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to appear at a hearing next week.

Facing an ultimatum from Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, both sides chose to avoid such a showdown in the legal battle tied to Republicans' stalled impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

In part, the move hinges on uncertainty over which party might have control of the House in the next Congress and whether the chamber would continue to pursue the subpoenas.

“It allows both of you to maintain your positions without either of you having to back down. [because] Whatever happens in the 119th Congress is out of your hands,” Reyes said.

“That’s why none of you have to give in, none of you have to shout uncle,” she said.

An online court order said the parties will file a report within 90 days of the swearing-in of the new Congress informing the court whether they intend to proceed with the lawsuit.

The Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed two DOJ officials, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan, who, according to the lawsuit, have firsthand knowledge of irregularities in the agency's investigation that “appeared to have benefited Hunter Biden.”

The Justice Department and the House Judiciary Department showed no signs of a legal solution Wednesday.

The federal lawsuit, which asks the court to compel the officials to testify, says the Justice Department instructed the attorneys to defy the subpoenas because the agency's attorney was not allowed to be present under House rules.

On Wednesday, Reyes urged both sides to agree to a stay of proceedings and urged them to “take this last, final lifeboat that I'm giving to all of you to get out of this mess.”

Before making the offer, Reyes railed against the positions offered by the Justice Department and the House Judiciary Department.

The judge suggested the dispute was a “ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money” and criticized the practicality of the litigation.

The judge said both sides negotiated in good faith in the settlement negotiations, but said both sides were “ridiculous” for failing to come to an agreement. She also accused them of “abusing the court.”

Reyes addressed the House's arguments, pointing out that the chamber's panels had already released a 291-page impeachment inquiry report that said the committees had “received significant evidence.”

The likelihood that the two subpoenaed officials would have information that would support suspicions that President Biden was involved in the department following or not following procedures is zero percent — or close to zero — percent, Reyes said.

The federal judge also criticized the Justice Department and at one point demanded to know who at the highest levels of the department approved the order to the two officials not to comply with the congressional subpoena.

Reyes also said the department's concerns about the separation of powers were “overblown.”

The status conference in the case comes more than a month after court records show the subpoena dispute took hundreds of attorney hours and cost an estimated cost of more than $443,000.

House General Counsel Matthew Berry estimated in a statement filed in mid-September that his firm had spent 485 legal hours working on the case so far, a corresponding cost estimate of $339,850.

Elizabeth J. Shapiro, a Justice Department official, wrote in a separate statement that about 445 attorney hours were spent working on the case. According to the document, the cost would be the equivalent of approximately $103,382.