On September 16, 2025, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Dr. Ralph de la Torre’s effort to bar criminal or civil enforcement of the Senate’s resolutions holding him in civil and criminal contempt of Congress. In bringing his pre-enforcement challenge, Dr. de la Torre alleged that any effort to pursue civil or criminal sanctions in connection with the resolutions would entail further “punishment” for his having invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (“HELP”) Committee regarding the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care. Judge McFadden’s sweeping rejection of this challenge underscores the limited ability of congressional subpoena targets to seek relief in court and highlights the formidable protection the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides to congressional investigators.
Last September, the Senate voted to hold Dr. de la Torre, the former CEO and founder of Steward Health Care Systems, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress after Dr. de la Torre defied a subpoena to appear at a hearing before the HELP Committee. As we outlined at the time, the vote followed months of contention between Dr. de la Torre and the Committee and represented the Senate’s first criminal contempt referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in more than half a century.
As explained by Judge McFadden, the Speech or Debate Clause “grants Congress absolute immunity from suits based on legislative actions.” With no enforcement proceeding yet underway, Judge McFadden found that every action Dr. de la Torre challenged—including the issuance of the subpoena, the Committee’s contempt resolutions, and the referral of those resolutions to the full Senate—fell squarely within the sphere of “legitimate legislative activity.” Because Dr. de la Torre has not been arrested, prosecuted, or subjected to any other non-legislative enforcement, Judge McFadden concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to review Dr. de la Torre’s challenge. Dr. de la Torre’s request for jurisdictional discovery was likewise denied, with the court observing that no additional facts could overcome the clear bar of the Speech or Debate Clause.
In reaching this result, Judge McFadden reiterated that courts may only engage in a “narrow” inquiry when confronted with a pre-enforcement challenge to a congressional subpoena: whether the underlying investigation is “facially legislative,” meaning related to subjects on which Congress may legislate. Judge McFadden explained that this already-narrow review applies only to the purpose of the investigation itself—not Members’ decisions to call any individual witness, publish critical press releases, or seek enforcement of subpoenas as part of that investigation. In short, as Judge McFadden explained, “those distressed by a congressional investigation have no judicial remedy so long as Congress acted in a procedurally regular manner” (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (cleaned up)).
Key Takeaways for Clients Facing Congressional Inquiries
The de la Torre decision is a reminder of the stark limitations on the ability of companies, executives, and organizations facing scrutiny from Capitol Hill to affirmatively challenge congressional subpoenas. Congress possesses expansive investigative authority. Unless a contempt citation ripens into a civil enforcement action or criminal prosecution (or, in the rare event that Congress relies on its inherent contempt authority to detain a recalcitrant witness), courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress’s actions. Even allegations of political animus or reputational harm may not overcome legislative immunity if Congress acts within its constitutional jurisdiction and follows regular procedures.
Potential witnesses should therefore take congressional subpoenas extremely seriously. Early strategic planning, careful evaluation of privileges, and experienced counsel are essential to navigating the limited options for responding to and, ideally, avoiding congressional subpoenas. As Judge McFadden’s opinion makes clear, once Congress acts within its legislative sphere, preemptive judicial relief is extraordinarily rare.