There Are Limits to Congress’s Investigatory Powers

Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Patterson Belknap website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Publications

Back to Publications

December 17, 2025

There Are Limits to Congress’s Investigatory Powers

Business Crimes Bulletin

Download Publication as PDF

Congress’ authority to conduct investigations under its “power of inquiry” is derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of “legislative Powers” with Congress. This constitutional power is broad in scope: Congress is authorized to initiate investigations, hold hearings, gather testimony or documents from witnesses, and in certain situations, compel compliance with its investigations through the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas. The current Congress has been eager to exercise this authority by investigating a wide variety of issues, often on issues that are of interest to the public. (See, H.R. Comm. And S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 119th Cong., Letter to David Coleman (October 1, 2025); H.R. Subcomm. on Cybersecurity, Info. Tech., and Gov. Innovation, 119th Cong., Letter to Dara Khosrowshahi (Sept. 24, 2025); H.R. Comm. On Oversight and Gov. Reform, 119th Cong., Letter to David Joyner (Sept. 4, 2025).)

To facilitate these investigations, the current 119th Congress has provided certain Committee chairs with “unilateral subpoena authority,” which “represents a major expansion of investigatory power that may have implications for any businesses subject to federal regulation and oversight.” See, Michael Brady et al., “Congress’ Subpoena and Oversight Changes Merit Businesses’ Review,” Bloomberg Law (Feb. 7, 2025). As a result, businesses across all sectors of the economy should be knowledgeable about how best to respond to a Congressional investigation, and ultimately, if the Committee is not satisfied with voluntary compliance efforts, the options available to them for objecting to a Congressional subpoena.

To continue reading Harry Sandick, Eric Beinhorn, and Kate Ross's article in Business Crimes Bulletin, please click here.

Firm Highlights

Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest. AB 290, the California statute at issue...

Patterson Belknap Joins Amicus Briefs Supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey

Patterson Belknap has joined the amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against those firms. Our firm has a history of defending the rule of law, and we are proud of our continued commitment. Our decision to participate as an amicus had nothing to do with politics or partisan ideologies. It had everything to do with what we view as our responsibility for and commitment to protecting the legal profession and our judicial system. On April 3, 2026, the firm once again joined an amicus brief supporting law firms in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against them. The cases are on appeal to...

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026). Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4. In October 2022, NJ...

Firm Partners to Speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference

On April 22, Partners Lachlan Campbell-Verduyn and Andrew D. Cohen will speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, the preeminent forum for pharmaceutical patent litigation. At 9:45am, Dr. Campbell-Verduyn will speak on a panel titled "Avoiding Costly Conception and Inventorship Missteps in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases." With Tom Irving and Jonathan James Underwood, she will discuss recent cases and best practices around questions of inventorship and conception. At 3:30pm, Dr. Cohen will speak on a program titled "Promise and Peril for Patents: Navigating Mandated Disclosures and Prior Art Pitfalls." He will join Angie Verrecchio (Senior Counsel, Patent Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Ryan Johnson, and Ricardo Camposanto to explore whether or not clinical trials and disclosures of information are...

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC v. CloudTalk.io, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 7776 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026). Missed Call is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 (“the ’872 Patent”), which is directed to a communication device that indicates whether a missed call is urgent or non-urgent based on how the call was terminated. Id. at *1. Specifically, calls terminated by a network are categorized as urgent, and calls terminated by the caller are categorized as non-urgent. Id. Missed Call accused CloudTalk of infringing the ’872 Patent....

Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations

On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations. On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries. On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...

Employment Litigator Millie Warner Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is pleased to announce that Millie Warner has joined the firm as a Partner in its Litigation department and as a member of the Employment Litigation, Workplace Investigations, and Compliance practice. Ms. Warner advises clients on a wide range of employment law and human resources issues. She represents clients in employment litigation, conducts sensitive internal investigations, crafts and litigates employee non-compete and non-solicit agreements, advises on enforcement actions, and provides other strategic counseling to help corporations minimize legal, compliance, and reputational risks. Ms. Warner counsels clients on disciplinary processes, termination of employees, and day-to-day human resources matters including drafting employment agreements, separation agreements, confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements, and employment policies. She also has...

Executive Order Addressing Anticompetitive Behavior In The Food Supply Chain Provides Insight On The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Enforcement Priorities

In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, titled “Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain,” signaling in no uncertain terms that his Administration intends to crack down on collusion in food-related industries. The Order, among other things, directs the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to create “Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces” that will investigate domestic entities to identify any anticompetitive behavior in U.S. food supply chains, as well as any ways in which foreign entities may be increasing the cost of U.S. food products. The Order underscores the Executive Branch’s existing focus on the food sector, with DOJ’s Antitrust Division having formalized a partnership with...

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes. In bankruptcy cases. judges will consider if sending parties to arbitration in light of the specific claims asserted conflicts with bankruptcy jurisdictional rules. A recurring issue that litigants raise is whether a conflict exists between the FAA and requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For instance, courts wrestle with how the assertion of bankruptcy-derived core claims and non-bankruptcy noncore claims impacts whether they should enforce an arbitration clause. Core claims are those that derive from the Bankruptcy Code, such federal fraudulent transfer claims. Noncore claims are those that would exist between parties even outside of bankruptcy, such as breach of contract claims governed...

The Administration Is Illegally Firing Court-Appointed US Attorneys

The U.S. Department of Justice isn’t winning many friends on the front lines of the federal judiciary, the U.S. district courts. Besides repeatedly violating court orders, the DOJ is also thumbing its nose at the district courts when they attempt to appoint qualified persons to serve as U.S. attorneys in the absence of a Senate-confirmed nominee. Recent headlines tell the story: “U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House” and "DOJ fires US attorney hours after judges appoint him." The terminations by Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general, are graceless and bombastic: “Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.” "Here we go again. [Eastern District of Virginia]...

Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest. AB 290, the California statute at issue...

Patterson Belknap Joins Amicus Briefs Supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey

Patterson Belknap has joined the amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against those firms. Our firm has a history of defending the rule of law, and we are proud of our continued commitment. Our decision to participate as an amicus had nothing to do with politics or partisan ideologies. It had everything to do with what we view as our responsibility for and commitment to protecting the legal profession and our judicial system. On April 3, 2026, the firm once again joined an amicus brief supporting law firms in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against them. The cases are on appeal to...

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026). Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4. In October 2022, NJ...

Firm Partners to Speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference

On April 22, Partners Lachlan Campbell-Verduyn and Andrew D. Cohen will speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, the preeminent forum for pharmaceutical patent litigation. At 9:45am, Dr. Campbell-Verduyn will speak on a panel titled "Avoiding Costly Conception and Inventorship Missteps in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases." With Tom Irving and Jonathan James Underwood, she will discuss recent cases and best practices around questions of inventorship and conception. At 3:30pm, Dr. Cohen will speak on a program titled "Promise and Peril for Patents: Navigating Mandated Disclosures and Prior Art Pitfalls." He will join Angie Verrecchio (Senior Counsel, Patent Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Ryan Johnson, and Ricardo Camposanto to explore whether or not clinical trials and disclosures of information are...

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC v. CloudTalk.io, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 7776 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026). Missed Call is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 (“the ’872 Patent”), which is directed to a communication device that indicates whether a missed call is urgent or non-urgent based on how the call was terminated. Id. at *1. Specifically, calls terminated by a network are categorized as urgent, and calls terminated by the caller are categorized as non-urgent. Id. Missed Call accused CloudTalk of infringing the ’872 Patent....

Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations

On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations. On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries. On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...