House Oversight Committee report says a lawful subpoena "preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA"
House Committee on Oversight and Government ReformHouse committee, in its report on the contempt resolution submitted by Chairman James Comer
In House Report 119-831, the committee said Leon Black invoked no valid reason for refusing to appear for a deposition or to produce all the nondisclosure agreements it subpoenaed. It said a lawful subpoena "preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA" and that the committee, not the witness, weighs third-party privacy against its investigative needs. It concluded that his refusal warrants referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Responding to
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in House Report 119-831 that Leon Black willfully failed to comply with its June 26, 2026 deposition subpoena and document subpoena, and that his stated reasons for not complying are without merit.
“Mr. Black invoked no valid reason for refusing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce all non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) referencing Epstein or Maxwell as well as all NDAs to which he is a party, and the Oversight Committee's efforts to persuade him to testify and produce documents have reached an impasse. ... A lawful, duly issued congressional subpoena preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA and it is the prerogative of the Oversight Committee to consider or weigh privacy concerns against its investigative needs. ... Mr. Black's willful refusal to comply with the Oversight Committee's subpoenas constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution as prescribed by law.”
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Was the House justified in holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress over the Epstein inquiry?
On June 26, 2026, Leon Black appeared voluntarily for a transcribed interview in the House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation. The committee said he declined to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements, and Chairman James Comer issued two subpoenas that day, one for a deposition and one for nondisclosure agreements. Black did not appear for the September 3 deposition and sued the committee that day; his attorneys said he had produced the only confidentiality agreement within the committee's stated purpose and that the subpoenas exceed its authority. The committee voted 41-0 on September 15 to recommend contempt, and the House agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent on September 16 with no recorded vote. Comer and Ranking Member Robert Garcia said Black defied the subpoenas, while Black's attorneys called the action retaliatory. The CourtListener copy of the lawsuit docket, last updated September 18, listed no ruling on Black's claims, and as of September 25, 2026 we could not locate a public Justice Department decision on the referral.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The committee's report on the contempt resolution. It sets out the subpoena history, the committee's account of Black's non-compliance, its response to the reasons Black gave, and the recorded committee vote. It states the committee's position, not a court finding.
Original text
About this source
Official record of the House floor action on H. Res. 1543: Comer's request for unanimous consent, the absence of objection, and agreement to the resolution.
Before the quotation
Comer issued a deposition subpoena and a document subpoena to Black on June 26, 2026. The report says the deposition was moved at Black's request to September 3, that Black's counsel declined to give deposition testimony in a letter hours before it began, and that Black sued the committee that day.
After the quotation
The committee approved the report by a recorded vote of 41 to 0 on September 15. The House agreed to the resolution on September 16 by unanimous consent.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the decision to hold Black in contempt, the committee argues that Black's stated reasons for not complying do not excuse it and asks the House to adopt the contempt resolution. That is a defense of the action itself, which separates it from a statement that only disputes how the action is described.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Leon Black
More from this case
Read the full caseFormer House counsel Michael Stern writes that Black's lawsuit "must fail" and that the committee "is entitled to question Black under oath"
“Black’s lawsuit must fail because it is well-settled that courts lack power to restrain congressional committees from issuing or enforcing a subpoena, regardless of the recipient’s claim that the subpoena violates constitutional privilege, was improperly motivated, or is otherwise unlawful. ... COGR is entitled to question Black under oath in a formal deposition even if Black had answered every pertinent question in a voluntary interview.”Read statement
Sen. Ron Wyden says "Black is doing everything in his power to dodge questions from Congress"
“No surprise Black is doing everything in his power to dodge questions from Congress.”Read statement
Rep. Yassamin Ansari says "Congressional subpoenas are binding, not suggestions"
“The House just unanimously approved our Oversight contempt resolution for Leon Black ... Congressional subpoenas are binding, not suggestions.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- House Oversight Committee report says a lawful subpoena "preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2660-in-house-report-119-831-the-committee-said
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "House Oversight Committee report says a lawful subpoena "preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA"". First published: 2026-09-26. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/2660-in-house-report-119-831-the-committee-said