BUDOWICH v. PELOSI, 610 F.Supp.3d 1

Background

After the January 6, 2021 attack, the House created the Select Committee to investigate causes and financing of the riot and to issue legislative recommendations.
In November 2021 the Committee subpoenaed Taylor Budowich for documents and testimony and also subpoenaed his bank, J.P. Morgan Chase (JPMorgan), for his financial records relating to the Ellipse rally funding.
Budowich produced documents and gave a deposition; JPMorgan, after notifying Budowich of the subpoena and his objection, produced responsive records to the Committee on December 24, 2021.
Budowich and his company sued Speaker Pelosi, the Select Committee and its members, and JPMorgan seeking return of documents, damages, and declaratory/injunctive relief; the Congressional Defendants and JPMorgan moved to dismiss.
The district court dismissed all claims: Speech or Debate Clause barred the claims against the Congressional Defendants; various grounds (mootness, lack of state action, statutory and state-law failures) defeated the claims against JPMorgan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Speech or Debate Clause bars suit against Committee/members	Budowich: Committee acted unlawfully/was not duly authorized so Clause should not bar suit	Congressional Defs: Clause immunizes legislative acts including subpoenas; jurisdictional bar	Court: Clause applies; subpoena issuance and investigation are legislative acts; claims against Congressional Defs dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether claims against JPMorgan (constitutional and non-statutory federal counts) are justiciable or moot	Budowich: seeks relief and challenges ongoing Committee practice; exception for matters capable of repetition	JPMorgan: produced records already and will not produce more, so injunctive relief is impossible; counts are moot	Court: Counts I–III, V, VI moot because production completed and no relief against JPMorgan is possible
Whether JPMorgan’s compliance with subpoena constitutes state action for constitutional claims	Budowich: bank acted at government direction, so constitutional claims apply	JPMorgan: private actor complying with subpoena is not a state actor	Court: JPMorgan was not a state actor; constitutional claims fail on that basis (and would in any event be moot)
Whether RFPA, California privacy law, and UCL support claims against JPMorgan	Budowich: RFPA and California statutes/regulations limit disclosure; RFPA authorizes suit; state law gives privacy/UCL remedies	JPMorgan: RFPA does not cover Congress/committees; disclosure fits RFPA/GLBA/CalFIPA exceptions; California privacy and UCL claims fail as a matter of law	Court: RFPA does not apply to Congress; California privacy claim fails (not an egregious, highly offensive intrusion); UCL claims fail (no predicate unlawful act and unfairness not shown)

Key Cases Cited

Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (congressional investigatory subpoenas are legislative acts entitled to Speech or Debate protection)
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (definition of legislative acts and limits on judicial inquiry)
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (Speech or Debate protects legislative communications and integral legislative acts)
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) (broad coverage of legislative acts under Speech or Debate)
Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations v. Ferrer, 856 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (separation-of-powers bars courts from ordering return/destruction of subpoenaed documents)
Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Select Committee has valid legislative purpose to investigate Jan. 6)
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) (standards for evaluating congressional subpoenas and legislative purpose)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens damages remedy not available against private entities)
United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979) (waiver of Speech or Debate protection requires explicit, unequivocal renunciation)