ISSUE BRIEF: The Historical and Legal Basis for the Exercise of Congressional Oversight Authority

With the recent change in leadership of the House of Representatives following the 2018 midterm elections, there has been considerable discussion about what role the 116th Congress will play in holding the Trump Administration and others accountable to the text and values of the U.S. Constitution, as well as to federal law more generally.


The House of Representatives could, if it chooses, play a significant role—investigating a range of critical matters such as the misuse of funds by cabinet officials, connections between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, whether the President or other officials are improperly benefitting financially from their offices, and whether the Executive Branch is properly enforcing environmental and other public health and safety laws.

Congress’s power to investigate has deep roots in our political tradition, and the ability of Congress to investigate is embedded in our national charter, which gives Congress the power to legislate. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who do possess it.” Given its function, the congressional power to investigate is quite broad, “indeed co-extensive with the power to legislate.” Moreover, should the Executive Branch refuse to comply with congressional requests for information, Congress has tools available to enforce its oversight authority, including bringing a civil action in court against recalcitrant Executive Branch officials.

The House of Representatives of the 116th Congress can do what the previous House declined to do: engage in robust and vigorous oversight of the Executive Branch. Doing so will ensure that Congress and the American people have a more complete picture of what this Administration is doing, the extent to which it is (or is not) faithfully complying with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and the ways in which Congress could legislate to correct any wrongdoing and to better serve the American people.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
July 28, 2021

Originalism Watch, Sixth Circuit Edition Part II: Judge Thapar Calls for the Supreme Court to “Breath[e] New Life” Into the Nondelegation Doctrine

Back in April, my colleague, David Gans, observed that Sixth Circuit Judge John Bush’s concurrence...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 27, 2021

RELEASE: CAC President Commends 1/6 Committee for Beginning Important Work, Urges Accountability

WASHINGTON – As the bipartisan Jan. 6 Select Committee holds its first hearing, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement and is available...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
July 22, 2021

OP-ED: The One Area Where Supreme Court Jurisprudence Is Actually Improving Thanks to Originalism

For decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly deferred to the police when judging the validity...
By: David H. Gans
Rule of Law
July 27, 2021

#PurpleChairChat: Supporting the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

CAC’s interns, Dylan Hosmer-Quint of Harvard Law, and Gilbert Orbea and Saja Spearman-Weaver of Yale Law, discuss the great work they have...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
July 16, 2021

Rent regulations are not unconstitutional

New York Daily News
Some New York City landlords are pushing for an expansive misreading of the Constitution to serve their...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Christopher Serkin
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Blassingame v. Trump

In Blassingame v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at...