Why (DOJ) Declined to Pursue Merrick Garland Contempt Charges?

The recent decision by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to decline pursuing contempt charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland has sparked significant political discourse. This decision comes amid a complex backdrop of legal interpretations and political maneuvers. Here’s a detailed analysis of why the DOJ made this choice.

Background of the Contempt Charges

The contempt charges against Garland stem from his refusal to provide the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees with audio recordings of an interview between President Joe Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur. This interview was part of an investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents. Despite having the interview transcript, House Republicans insisted on obtaining the audio to verify the transcript’s accuracy and context.

The House, led by a Republican majority, voted 216 to 207 to hold Garland in contempt, arguing that the audio recording was crucial for their oversight responsibilities. The vote was part of a broader GOP strategy to scrutinize the Biden administration, including ongoing inquiries into Hunter Biden and allegations of misuse of political office for personal gain​ (NY1)​​ (WVXU)​​ (DNyuz)​.

Read More: ’Inside Out 2’ Delivers Historic $155M U.S. Opening and $295M Globally in Huge Pixar Comeback

Legal and Executive Privilege Considerations

A primary reason the DOJ declined to pursue contempt charges is the assertion of executive privilege by President Biden. Executive privilege is a long-standing principle that allows the executive branch to withhold information from Congress or the courts to preserve confidential communications or protect the public interest. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has consistently upheld this principle, emphasizing that the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to executive branch officials who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas based on executive privilege claims​ (Newsmax)​.

The OLC memo explicitly states that no U.S. Attorney has pursued criminal contempt charges against an executive branch official in such contexts for nearly seven decades. This stance reflects a commitment to maintaining the separation of powers and respecting the executive branch’s autonomy in matters of national importance​ (Newsmax)​.

The DOJ’s Position and Justifications

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the DOJ’s position by highlighting the department’s efforts to cooperate with congressional inquiries. Garland pointed out that the committees already had the transcript of Biden’s interview, which, according to the DOJ, suffices for their stated needs. The DOJ argued that releasing the audio recording would not provide any additional relevant information and would set a precedent that could compromise future executive branch confidentiality​ (WVXU)​​ (Newsmax).​

Read More: Alex Jones Must Sell Personal Assets to Pay $1.5 Billion Sandy Hook Debt

Furthermore, Garland noted that the DOJ had gone to significant lengths to be transparent about Special Counsel Hur’s investigation, providing extensive documentation and testimony to congressional committees. This transparency, according to Garland, underscores the DOJ’s commitment to lawful and ethical conduct, rendering the pursuit of contempt charges unnecessary and counterproductive​ (DNyuz)​.

Political Implications and Reactions

The decision not to pursue contempt charges has deepened partisan divides. House Republicans view the refusal as an obstruction and an example of the DOJ’s alleged partisanship. They argue that withholding the audio recording suggests potential discrepancies or information that the administration wants to conceal. This sentiment is echoed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who speculated that the only reason for withholding the recording would be discrepancies between the audio and the transcript or damaging content within the audio itself​ (DNyuz)​.

On the other hand, Democrats and the Biden administration assert that the demand for the audio is a politically motivated attempt to undermine the executive branch. They argue that the existing transcript should suffice for oversight purposes and that pursuing the audio is an unnecessary and invasive measure​ (NY1)​​ (DNyuz)​.

Historical Context and Precedents

Historically, the invocation of executive privilege and subsequent refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas is not unprecedented. Previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have similarly invoked executive privilege to protect sensitive information. Notable instances include the Obama administration’s refusal to release documents related to the Fast and Furious operation and the Trump administration’s multiple assertions of privilege during various investigations​ (WVXU)​​ (Newsmax)​.

These precedents reinforce the DOJ’s current stance, illustrating a consistent application of executive privilege across different administrations. This consistency aims to safeguard the executive branch’s ability to operate effectively without undue interference from legislative inquiries.


The DOJ’s decision to decline pursuing contempt charges against Merrick Garland is rooted in long-standing legal principles and concerns about executive privilege. While this decision has drawn criticism from House Republicans, it aligns with historical precedents and the DOJ’s interpretation of its responsibilities. As the political landscape continues to evolve, this case highlights the ongoing tension between congressional oversight and executive confidentiality, a dynamic central to the balance of power in the U.S. government.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button