Leon Black is refusing to comply with two subpoenas issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Instead, Black filed a lawsuit in federal court this week seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. It raises the question, why did Republican James Comer (R-KY) issue overly broad subpoenas in the first place? It’s a layup that has enabled Black to tie up the investigation. In the past, Comer has blocked investigations into Donald Trump while launching investigations into Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
SHOCK: Black is being represented by the law firm Hogan Lovels Cadwalader US, LLP. U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche used to be a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, which merged with Hogan Lovels in July 2026—the largest law firm merger in history. In 2023, Blanche left Cadwalader to represent Donald Trump in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, which resulted in 34 felony convictions.
Black’s lawsuit is asking federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton appointee) for declaratory and injunctive relief—essentially a restraining order to prevent the House Committee from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, or otherwise compelling compliance with the subpoenas.”
In March 2026, Chairman Comer asked Black to appear voluntarily for an in-person interview before the House Committee. Black cooperated and appeared a few months later. Black alleges the House Committee agreed to a certain scope of questioning but when he appeared, James Comer immediately began asking questions about NDAs to which Black objected and refused to answer. Black argues that line of questioning was not part of the agreed-upon topics. Thereafter, Comer issued multiple subpoenas requiring Black to produce NDAs and to testify at a deposition.
Black has since refused to comply with the subpoenas. In his lawsuit, Black argues:
The subpoenas are invalid to the extent they exceed [the Committee’s] delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to [the Committee’s] legislative purpose. Additionally, the subpoenas would also expose women who value their privacy, who have no known or public connection to Epstein, who bargained for confidentiality and have refused to release it, and who have no ability to protect themselves and their privacy before the Committee.
Black further argues that certain people whom “he has or may have” NDAs with, “have informed [him] through counsel that they want no part of this public fishing expedition.” I don’t believe his counsel is lying about that argument. If some of Black’s victims signed a confidential settlement agreement with him in the past, why should their names and NDAs be exposed to the public?
In no way am I defending Black, but his legal team has raised legitimate constitutional issues that will likely tie up the subpoenas for quite some time.
If Judge Kollar-Kotelly determines the Committee’s subpoenas are valid, it’s painfully obvious that Black will challenge the subpoenas in the Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you haven’t had a chance, please subscribe to my blog for free by simply entering your email below. For paid subscribers, I have posted my source documents below.
