Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 — Constitutional Limits Of Congresss Investigation And Oversight Powers

prev | next

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress’s investigatory powers are limited by the constitutional protections accorded to individuals under the Bill of Rights. In Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court observed that:

It is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation. This, of course, assumes that the constitutional rights of witnesses will be respected by the Congress as they are in a court of justice. The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of governmental action.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn1art1 " Watkins v. United States, 345 U.S. 178, 187–88 (1957) ( “Congress, must exercises its own powers, including the power to investigate, subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action.” ). ")

Because a congressional inquiry is part of “lawmaking,” a congressional committee engaged in an investigation generally must observe applicable constitutional restrictions and respect validly asserted constitutionally-based privileges.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn2art1 " Id. at 197 ( “While it is true that there is no statute to be reviewed, and that an investigation is not a law, nevertheless an investigation is part of lawmaking. It is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process.” ). ") Although not all provisions of the Bill of Rights are directly relevant to a congressional investigation, it is apparent that many are, with the First and Fifth Amendment s providing the principle limitations on Congress’s exercise of it powers.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn3art1 " Due in part to the unique nature of congressional proceedings, not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been judicially determined to be applicable in the committee investigation context. For example, the D.C. Circuit has held that because of the “investigative” rather than “criminal” nature of committee hearings, the Sixth Amendment’s individual criminal procedural guarantees; including a party’s right to “present evidence on one’s own behalf and to confront and cross examine one’s accusers,” do not apply in the congressional investigation setting. United States v. Fort, 443 F.2d 670, 678–81 (D.C Cir. 1970). ")

The Court has clearly established that First Amendment protections apply to congressional investigations.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn4art1 " Watkins, 345 U.S. at 197 ( “Clearly, an investigation is subject to the command that the Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly.” ). ") Compelling a witness to testify “against his will, about his beliefs, expressions, or associations is a measure of governmental interference” with the witness’s free speech rights.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn5art1 " Id. ") However, the actual application of these protections in a congressional investigation is an “arduous and delicate task” that involves balancing Congress’s interest in obtaining information with the witnesses’ interest in personal privacy.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn6art1 " Id. at 198. ") In Watkins, the Court made clear that in considering a First Amendment challenge in a congressional inquiry “[t]he critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness.” [7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn7art1 " Id. ") In short, the extent to which the First Amendment can be used as a shield against a congressional inquiry depends on the strength of the committee’s legislative purpose.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn8art1 " See Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 127 ( “The first question is whether this investigation was related to a valid legislative purpose, for Congress may not constitutionally require an individual to disclose his political relationships or other private affairs except in relation to such a purpose.” ). ")

This balancing test was put to use in Barenblatt v. United States.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn9art1 " Id. at 126–27. ") The opinion, along with subsequent consistent decisions, suggests that a First Amendment defense to compulsory congressional process has generally had little success.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn10art1 " Id. at 134; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 414–15 (1961) (following Barenblatt and concluding that the subcommittee had an “overbalancing interest” because it “had reasonable ground to suppose that the petitioner was an active Communist Party member, and that as such he possessed information that would substantially aid it in its legislative investigation” ). ") In Barenblatt, a college professor had been convicted of criminal contempt of Congress for his refusal to answer, on First Amendment grounds, questions before a HUAC subcommittee relating to his Communist Party involvement.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn11art1 " Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 113–14. ") The Court disagreed with the professor’s position, reasoning that the First Amendment does “not afford a witness the right to resist inquiry in all circumstances.” [12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn12art1 " Id. at 126. ") Instead, the Court reasoned, “[w]here First Amendment rights are asserted to bar government interrogation resolution of the issue always involved a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown.” After determining that Congress has “wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity in this Country,” the Court characterized the government interest at play as one of “self-preservation” as one of the central tenets of the Communist Party was the violent overthrow of the American government.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn13art1 " Id. at 144. ") In contrast, the opinion made little mention of the witnesses’ First Amendment rights, but in weighing the competing interests, the Barenblatt opinion concluded that the balance “must be struck in favor of the government.” [14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn14art1 " Id. at 134 “(We conclude that the balance between the individual and the governmental interests here at stake must be struck in favor of the latter, and that therefore the provisions of the First Amendment have not been offended.” ). ")

Witnesses also have a right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during a congressional investigation.[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn15art1 " See Quinn, 349 U.S. at 160–62 ( “Still further limitations on the power to investigate are found in the specific individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights, such as the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination which is in issue here.” ). ") The privilege’s applicability was explicitly established in a group of cases released on the same day in 1955.[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn16art1 " Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955); Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (1955); Bart v. United States, 349 U.S. 219 (1955). ") Each involved a witness who had refused to answer questions before the HUAC by relying on their Fifth Amendment privilege.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn17art1 " Quinn, 349 U.S. at 157–58; Emspak, 349 U.S. at 192; Bart, 349 U.S. at 219. ") In each case, the privilege was rejected by the HUAC and the witness later prosecuted for criminal contempt of Congress. The Court overturned all three convictions, simultaneously establishing important foundational principles for the scope of the privilege in a congressional proceeding as well as standards for invocation and waiver of the privilege.[18](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/constitutional-limits-of-congresss-investigation-and-oversight-powers#fn18art1 " Quinn, 349 U.S. at 170; Emspak, <span