The committee wants information about ongoing investigations from the Department of Justice. The DOJ sent back a letter explaining why it will not. It's a great look at separated powers, and checks and balances.
- This appears to be the letter the responded to by the DOJ.
There are others, click here for a list.
While each branch can serve as a check on the others, they are not allowed to interfere with each other's basic functions.
- Wikipedia: House Judiciary Committee.
- Wikipedia: Department of Justice.
- Click here for the letter.
Here are parts of the letter.
We are in receipt of your January 17, 2023, letters to the Department of Justice (Department), as well as three of our law enforcement components, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), regarding information requests that you sent during the 117th Congress. 1 In light of your appointment as Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Committee), the Department would like to take this opportunity to review our practices with respect to congressional engagement for the benefit of both new and returning Members of the Committee. We look forward to a productive relationship in the 118th Congress.
. . . The Department stands ready to provide expertise as the Committee considers potential legislation. We often provide technical assistance on draft or introduced legislation to ensure the drafters are aware of how it may impact civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, grant making, and other matters within the Department’s purview, and to ensure its constitutionality. We encourage you to share legislative drafts as early as possible because our review can be time-consuming. Early consultation with the Department will help prevent instances in which drafters are inconvenienced by late feedback from the Department, or are left altogether unaware of significant Department concerns.
. . . Sufficient advance notice enables the identification of a mutually agreeable date that meets the Committee’s needs while taking into account the operational responsibilities of Department representatives, including overseeing criminal and national security investigations. The Committee should include information about the focus of the hearing and any specific matters the Department should be prepared to address. Two weeks is the minimum advance notice required for the Department to identify an appropriate witness and prepare testimony, which must be cleared through the Office of Management and Budget. The Department will be better able to meet your needs at hearings if your request is specific concerning the information the Committee seeks.
. . . Once the format of the hearing or briefing is established, and the relevant topics and number of panels have been determined, the Department will identify one or more officials to appear after consideration of all factors, including their schedules, their position, and other suitability concerns.
. . . With respect to oversight requests for information and documents, we share your belief that congressional oversight is vital to our functioning democracy and we are committed to cooperating with the Committee’s legitimate efforts to seek information, consistent with our obligation to protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests. As President Reagan explained in his 1982 directive on responding to congressional requests for information, the “tradition of accommodation” should be “the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.”3 The Constitution “contemplates such accommodation” and requires each Branch to engage in a “realistic evaluation of [one another’s] needs.”
. . . The Committee can assist the Department in making this process as efficient as possible by helping the Department understand the scope of its interests, by discussing the potential use or protection of the information, and, especially importantly, by prioritizing requests.
. . . Consistent with longstanding policy and practice, any oversight requests must be weighed against the Department’s interests in protecting the integrity of its work. Longstanding Department policy prevents us from confirming or denying the existence of pending investigations in response to congressional requests or providing non-public information about our investigations. 7 The Department’s obligation to “protect the government’s ability to prosecute fully and fairly” is vital to the Executive Branch’s core constitutional function to investigate and prosecute criminal matters. The Department’s mission to independently and impartially uphold the rule of law requires us to maintain the integrity of our investigations, prosecutions, and civil actions, and to avoid even a perception that our efforts are influenced by anything but the law and the facts. So does the Department’s obligation to protect witnesses and law enforcement, avoid flight by those implicated in our investigations, and prevent additional crimes and attacks.
. . . Your January 17 requests—made now in your position as Chairman—initiate the constitutionally mandated accommodation process. Under this process, the Legislative and Executive Branches have a constitutional obligation to negotiate in good faith to meet the informational needs of Congress while protecting the institutional interests of the Executive Branch.
. . . Finally, the Department is committed to protecting the rights of whistleblowers (i.e., employees or applicants for employment who have made a protected disclosure), and to complying with both the letter and spirit of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). Nothing in the foregoing is intended to impact the requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling executive orders and statutory provisions.
We hope this information is helpful, and we look forward to a productive relationship. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.
