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.