2 U.S.C. § 192
Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 279
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1928–2025 · leading case: Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962).
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). “Congress has expressly provided that no one can be prosecuted under 2 U. S. C. § 192 except upon indictment by a grand jury.”
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). “This is a review by certiorari of a conviction under 2 U. S. C. § 192 for "contempt of Congress.”
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007). “" 2 U.S.C. § 192 . As we explained at length in our opinion in Russell v.”
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974). “In holding that the indictment was insufficient because it did not state the subject which was under inquiry, this Court stated: "[T]he very core of criminality under 2 U.”
Barsky v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York, 347 U.S. 442 (1954). “Appellant appeared before the Congressional Committee but, pursuant to advice of counsel and the action of his executive *445 board, he and the other officers of the Refugee Committee failed and refused to produce the subpoenaed papers. In 1947, appellant, the executive…”
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959). “We here review petitioner's conviction under 2 U. S. C. § 192 [1] for contempt of Congress, arising from his refusal to answer certain questions put to him by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the course of an inquiry concerning alleged…”
Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456 (1961). “He waived a jury and was convicted upon four of the five counts of the indictment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 108 U.”
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). “§ 102, 2 U. S. C. § 192 . The two questions are similar, however, and the essential argument made by respondent here was made by appellant in that case, who sought reversal of his conviction because of the trial court's failure to submit the question of pertinency to the jury:…”
Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955). “Petitioner was convicted of contempt of Congress under 2 U. S. C. § 192 in the District Court for the District of Columbia.”
Donald Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 940 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “at 214 (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 192 ). In that case, the Court took the opportunity to emphasize that although “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” courts should avoid “testing the motives of committee members for this purpose.”
United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950). “§ 102, 2 U. S. C. § 192 : "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent…”
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). “See 2 U. S. C. § 192 . The United States Attorney, however, a member of the Executive Branch, initially took no steps to prosecute the contempt citation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.