https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=jpl
17 For exam- ple, in Bergman the Court held that a subpoena calling for "'any' and 'all' financial records from 1969 to date [which] might include records relating to plaintiffs' purely personal financial affairs,"18 was invalid in part, where the issuing sub- committee only had general authority to inquire into housing for the elderly. The court reasoned that while the subcommittee may properly investigate nursing home profits, "a general in- quiry designed to ascertain plaintiffs' personal wealth ... is not pertinent to the investigation ...."19
In Watkins u. United States,20 the Court stated that
Corp., 434 F. Supp. 773 (D.D.C. 1977); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943 (1979).
15. See Bergman v. Senate Special Comm. on Aging, 389 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
16. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F. Supp. 297 (D.C. Cir.), a{fd 548 F.2d 977 (1976).
17. See Moreland, supra note 5, at 230-42.
18. Bergman, 389 F. Supp. at 1130.
19. ld.
20. 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957) (citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.
37] THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA 43
where the information requested from a subpoenaed witness is "unrelated to any legislative purpose," the individual's constitu- tional right to privacy outweighs the committee's interest in the information. Further, in Tobin v. United States,21 the Court held that the House Judiciary Committee's general au- thority to investigate interstate compacts did not authorize the Committee to issue a "deep and penetrating" subpoena of all internal administrative documents of a specified entity.22
IV. WITNESS PROTECTIONS FROM COMPULSORY PROCESS AND CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
In view of the significant Congressional contempt power, it is important to review the protections available to a subpoe- naed witness who is subject to an enforcement proceeding. There are essentially three defenses to, or protections from, a contempt proceeding.45 Specifically, failure to comply with a subpoena does not constitute contempt if the basis of the con- tempt proceeding is invalid (such as when the subpoena is in- valid), if the failure is not willful, or if such failure is protected by privilege.46
