,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
No link to the complaint yet, but based on the description, I’m not sure why it’s not frivolous: It sounds like it’s a challenge to the subpoena on grounds that it’s an unreasonable burden to comply for someone whose doesn’t have to comply with it.
Complaint here, reading now. Looks like their key case is Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) -- reading that, too.
scribd.com/document/40811…
scribd.com/document/40811…
Here's the Eastland case below. It involved an effort to quash a Congressional subpoena to a third-party scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
On a first read, Eastland seems to say that a federal court can't get involved with these issues, and that it can't speculate about illegitimate motives or to try to limit abuses. Key sections below. 
The complaint contends that a court can block a congressional subpoena if the court thinks congress was acting for an illegitimate reason.
The complaint is getting that test from this footnote in Eastland:
If I'm reading Eastland correctly, though -- and this is the 1st time I've heard of it, much less read it, so maybe I'm wrong -- the main body of the op then explains that the court can't actually scrutinize congressional purpose, as the complaint wants the court to do.
That's my sense, at least, based on a first read.
Looking at my mentions, fascinating how many people on Twitter are experts in this precise topic -- who knew?
Looking at my mentions, fascinating how many people on Twitter are experts in this precise topic -- who knew?
