2 U.S.C. § 194

Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject 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 or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1947–2021 · leading case: Dagmar Wilson v. United States of America, Donna Allen v. United States of America, Russell Nixon v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dagmar Wilson v. United States of America, Donna Allen v. United States of America, Russell Nixon v. United States (1966) cadc · cites it 16× “2 In our view the convictions must be reversed because the decision by the Committee to cite appellants for contempt was not given the additional consideration within the legislative branch that is contemplated by the governing statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194 . The statute provides: §…”

Russell v. United States (1962) scotus · cites it 2× “" [6] 2 U. S. C. § 194 provides: "Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question…”

United States v. Bryan (1950) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 104, 2 U. S. C. § 194 . [6] The subpoena read as follows: "BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "To the Sergeant at Arms, or his Special Messenger: "You are hereby commanded to summon the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee…”

United States v. Brewster (1972) scotus · cites it 2× “2 U. S. C. § 194 . It is beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts.”

COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers (2008) dcd “See 2 U.S.C. § 194 . On that same day, Speaker Pelosi wrote to Attorney General Michael B.”

United States v. Shelton (1962) dcd · cites it 8× “In other words, while the defendant does not deny that such seal was present when the first indictment was returned in 1956, thus complying with 2 U.S.C. § 194 , the defendant contends that a new seal, signifying a renewed certification of the fact that the witness refused to…”

Nixon v. Sirica (1973) cadc “2 U.S.C. § 194 (1970). . Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.”

Lindsey v. Cryts (In Re Cox Cotton Co.) (1982) ared “See 2 U.S.C. § 194 . It is not conceivable that such an onerous power could be vested in a body other than a court of law, equity or admiralty.”

United States v. Costello (1952) ca2 “It is urged by the defendant that Counts 5, 6 and 8 are also defective for the reason that the resolution of the Senate citing him for contempt, required by 2 U.S. C.A. § 194, 3 was based only on the refusal to answer certain questions and that the indictment must therefore be…”

United States v. House of Representatives of United States (1983) dcd “2 U.S.C. § 194 . The President or Speaker in turn delivers the contempt citation to the appropriate United States Attorney.”

Joint Legislative Committee of the Legislature v. Strain (1972) la · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 194 . The strong implication, the almost implicit inference, to be gained is that contempt is a criminal matter.”

United States v. Eilberg (1980) paed “Given the disinclination and limitations of each House to police these matters, it is understandable that both Houses deliberately delegated this function to the courts, as they did with the power to punish persons committing contempts of Congress.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.