Black's attorneys call the House contempt action "politically motivated and completely retaliatory"
Susan EstrichAttorney for Leon Black (Estrich Goldin LLP), in a statement issued jointly with Aaron Cutler of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
After the House agreed to the resolution on September 16, 2026, Black's attorneys Susan Estrich and Aaron Cutler called it "an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black". They said the House "has rushed through every stage of this inquiry" and that the action is "politically motivated and completely retaliatory". They also said the full House acted without regard to Black's pending lawsuit and an ethics complaint against Comer.
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.
“an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black ... The House of Representatives has rushed through every stage of this inquiry. ... The full House is holding him in contempt without any regard to the active litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Committee’s actions and the ethics complaint against Chairman Comer ... politically motivated and completely retaliatory by a Chairman who is focused solely on himself and his own political ambitions without any regard for the truth and the law. ... To think, he is being held in contempt over invalid subpoenas is ridiculous.”
Original text
Original text
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
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
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.
Original text
About this source
Court docket for Black's lawsuit, assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The entries viewed run from the complaint on September 3 through appearance filings on September 9 and include no ruling.
Reporting
About this source
CNBC report on the House action. It quotes Black's attorneys at length and a Justice Department spokesperson's statement about the expected referral.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
NBC News report on the House action that quotes the statement from Black's attorneys, Comer and Garcia.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Politico report on the House action that quotes the attorneys' statement and Comer's and Garcia's statements.
Reporting
About this source
Forbes report on the House action. It states the House acted by unanimous consent with no debate or roll call and quotes Black's attorneys.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The House agreed to the contempt resolution by unanimous consent on September 16, 2026, without a recorded vote.
After the quotation
The attorneys said they intend to pursue Black's lawsuit against the committee and Comer. The CourtListener copy of the docket, last updated September 18, listed no ruling on Black's claims.
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 reject it as retaliatory and based on invalid subpoenas, and say the House ignored pending litigation and an ethics complaint. That is a condemnation of the action itself.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- James Comer Jr., 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 House contempt action "politically motivated and completely retaliatory"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2668-after-the-house-agreed-to-the-resolution-on
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Black's attorneys call the House contempt action "politically motivated and completely retaliatory"". First published: 2026-09-26. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/2668-after-the-house-agreed-to-the-resolution-on