As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushes forward with her partisan committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill, one former Trump administration insider is pursuing a lawsuit against the panel.
Recent reports, however, show that former national security adviser Michael Flynn has hit a significant roadblock in his legal challenge.
Judge explains decision
According to the Washington Examiner, a federal judge this week denied a motion from Flynn that would have blocked the subpoenas issued against him by the House select committee.
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven rejected the motion for two reasons, as explained in her ruling.
For starters, she claimed that Flynn is not facing “immediate and irreparable harm,” though he noted that other subpoenaed individuals are facing criminal contempt charges for failing to comply with similar orders from the committee.
Since no date has yet been set for Flynn to hand over the requested documents, the judge determined that his petition is premature.
Secondly, Scriven turned down the motion because Flynn’s legal team apparently failed to follow the proper filing procedure for such a motion. She noted that existing rules require him to inform Pelosi and the committee or explain why they did not.
“Unconstitutional and unlawful investigation”
All in all, it is a clear early defeat for Flynn’s legal team. Nevertheless, the lawsuit itself is far from over. In fact, Scriven told Flynn that he could submit another request for a temporary restraining order “if he believes he can comply with the procedural requirements.”
At the moment, however, it appears that the judge’s decision would not change since nothing would have changed to introduce the “immediate and irreparable harm” she also determined was missing from the equation.
Flynn filed the lawsuit in an effort to block multiple subpoenas, including one requiring him to testify and another seeking his phone records.
The former Trump adviser is arguing that the requests are too far-reaching and that the panel is violating his First Amendment rights. For his part, attorney David Warrington attempted to paint Scriven’s decision in a positive light.
“General Flynn looks forward to obtaining relief from Congress’s unconstitutional and unlawful investigation in the normal course of his pending suit for injunctive relief that was not affected by today’s order,” he explained.