Trump-Appointed Judge Hands Jim Jordan a Legal Win

A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump has denied Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's request to block a House Judiciary Committee subpoena of former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.

Bragg brought a temporary restraining order against Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan last week as an attempt to halt the subpoena, saying the panel's request was an "unconstitutional attack by members of Congress."

The subpoena is part of Jordan's oversight into the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Prior to resigning in February 2022, Pomerantz lead the probe into the office's investigation of Trump's finances that ultimately led to the former president's 34 felony counts accusing him of falsifying business records during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Bragg brought the charges against the former president this month, accusing Trump of attempting to conceal "hush money" payments made by his former attorney, Michael Cohen. Jordan has argued that Bragg's prosecution of Trump is an "unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority."

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote in her opinion Wednesday that Jordan's subpoena of Pomerantz was "a 'valid legislative purpose' in connection with the 'broad' and 'indispensable' congressional power to 'conduct investigations.'"

"It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection," Vyskocil added. "Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law."

Bragg had argued that Jordan and other House committee members had "no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions," and that there was "no legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena."

Vyskocil, however, wrote that, "Congressional committees have constitutional authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas because each House has power "to secure needed information" to legislate, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ultimately ordered Trump to turn over his tax returns to Congress.

The district judge also acknowledged the politicization of the investigation into Bragg's office, writing that occasional elected state and federal officials "engage in political dogfights."

"Bragg complains of political interference in the local [District Attorney for New York County] case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena," Vyskocil wrote. "Bragg is presumptively acting in good faith. That said, he is an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination."

"Jordan, in turn, has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election," Vyskocil continued in her conclusion.

"The Court does not endorse either side's agenda. The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not."

During questioning earlier in the day, Vyskocil took noticeable issue with Jordan describing Bragg's investigation of Trump as being "politically motivated," asking the chairman, "Doesn't it politicize it on your side as well?"

In a statement shared to Twitter, a spokesperson for Jordan said that Vyskocil's decision "shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomerantz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee."

Newsweek has reached out to Bragg's office on Twitter for comment.