Black's attorneys call the contempt markup "a complete abomination" and "retaliation - plain and simple"
Susan EstrichAttorney for Leon Black (Estrich Goldin LLP), in a statement issued jointly with Aaron Cutler of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
In a Business Wire statement on September 15, 2026, Black's attorneys Susan Estrich and Aaron Cutler called the committee's markup and contempt resolution "a complete abomination" and "retaliation - plain and simple". They said the subpoenas were illegitimate and that Black provided "the only NDA that was within the scope of the Committee's authority".
Responding to
In a federal complaint, Leon Black alleged that the House Oversight Committee's two subpoenas are invalid to the extent they exceed its delegated authority by seeking private information that has no legitimate connection to its legislative purpose.
“This Committee mark-up and contempt resolution is a complete abomination. The Committee under the leadership of Chairman James Comer and Ranking Member Robert Garcia has lost sight of its legislative purpose and is abusing its power. ... This is retaliation - plain and simple. We have the constitutional right to sue Chairman Comer and the Committee because the subpoenas issued were illegitimate, illegal, and a textbook abuse of power designed to bully and destroy legal protections of private citizens. ... He provided to the Committee the only NDA that was within the scope of the Committee's authority. ... This entire charade is about politics and ambition. ... there were more than enough reasons to postpone this mark-up and contempt resolution.”
Official statement
Original text
Original text
Other statements by Susan Estrich in this case
Every statement by Susan Estrich
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
Official statement
About this source
Paid press release from Black's attorneys, distributed through Business Wire, responding to the committee's markup and contempt resolution. It says the attorneys submitted letters to the committee and filed a confidential complaint with the Office of Congressional Conduct.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Letter from Black's counsel asking the committee to postpone the September 15 markup until members had all material information, the Office of Congressional Conduct had reviewed a complaint about Comer, and the court had ruled on Black's lawsuit.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Committee roll call sheet for the vote to report the contempt resolution. It records 41 ayes and 0 noes, with 20 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting aye and six Republican members not recorded.
Before the quotation
Black's attorneys sent letters that day asking the committee to postpone the markup until members had all material information, the Office of Congressional Conduct had reviewed a complaint about Comer, and the court had ruled on Black's lawsuit. They said they had filed the confidential complaint that morning.
After the quotation
The committee voted 41 to 0 that afternoon to recommend contempt, according to its roll call sheet.
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 attorneys denounce the contempt resolution and the committee's process and say the subpoenas were illegitimate. That rejects the action itself, which is stronger than disputing how it is described.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- James Comer Jr., Robert Garcia, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
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
- Black's attorneys call the contempt markup "a complete abomination" and "retaliation - plain and simple"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2667-in-a-business-wire-statement-on-september-15
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Black's attorneys call the contempt markup "a complete abomination" and "retaliation - plain and simple"". First published: 2026-09-26. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/2667-in-a-business-wire-statement-on-september-15