American lawyer, law professor and political commentator; professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California and an attorney with the law firm Estrich Goldin LLP.
Case
The House agreed on September 16 to hold Leon Black in contempt over two Oversight Committee subpoenas in the Epstein inquiry. Comer and Garcia say he defied them; Black's lawyers call the action retaliation and dispute the subpoenas' validity.
Role at the time: Attorney for Leon Black (Estrich Goldin LLP), in a statement issued jointly with Aaron Cutler of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Response to this claim
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.”
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.
Role at the time: Attorney for Leon Black (Estrich Goldin LLP), in a statement issued jointly with Aaron Cutler of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Response to this claim
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.”
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.
Statement dates: September 15, 2026 to September 16, 2026
Statement dates: September 15, 2026 to September 16, 2026
Statement dates: September 15, 2026 to September 16, 2026
