Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg withdrew his appeal Friday in a case against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and instead agreed to allow the congressman to question a former prosecutor from Bragg’s office, averting what could have become a drawn-out legal process.
The agreement between the pair permits the House Judiciary Committee, of which Jordan is chairman, to hold a deposition with Mark Pomerantz on May 12, as well as allows Bragg to send one lawyer to accompany Pomerantz for the purpose of objecting to privileged information during it, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.
Bragg had filed a lawsuit against Jordan this month seeking to prevent Jordan from enforcing a subpoena against Pomerantz, who resigned from Bragg’s office in February 2022 out of frustration that Bragg had not at the time wanted to pursue the investigation against Trump.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled firmly in Jordan’s favor on Wednesday, determining that the Ohio Republican had a “valid legislative purpose” for wanting to question Pomerantz and that Pomerantz had to appear for his scheduled deposition on Thursday.
However, Bragg quickly appealed the decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Bragg an administrative stay to give the court time to consider his appeal. The court had asked Bragg to file appeal paperwork by Friday and Jordan to file his response by Saturday.
In reaching the agreement, Jordan is able to continue his investigation into Bragg, who is pursuing a historic criminal case against former President Donald Trump.
After this story was published, Bragg’s office released a statement on dropping his suit and reaching the agreement with Jordan, saying it was “pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe.”
Jordan has said Pomerantz, who was serving as a special assistant on the Trump case when Bragg took office, is relevant to his congressional investigation.
In his resignation letter, media appearances, and a book he authored called People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account, Pomerantz has expressed his grievances with Trump in vivid detail.
In his book in particular, he heavily criticized the former president and discussed internal concerns people in the district attorney’s office had about the Trump investigation.
Along with seeking to question Bragg and Bragg’s senior counsel Matthew Colangelo, Jordan said in a subpoena cover letter to Pomerantz that he is relevant to the congressional probe because of his “unique role as special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances.”
Pomerantz would be able to provide “information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms,” Jordan contended.
Bragg, in his 50-page lawsuit, had sought to quash the subpoena to Pomerantz and “put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition” that he said Jordan was embarking on by investigating Bragg.
Bragg argued Jordan’s demands and subpoena to Pomerantz sought “highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York,” defying what he said were “basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent.”
Vyskocil decided, however, that “it is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection.”
She added, “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law.”
The case is Bragg v. Jordan, No. 23-cv-3032 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.