A member of Congress subpoenas phone records and then release them: does this violate any US Laws?
<p>If a member of Congress (e.g. Representative Schiff) subpoenas phone records of people (which is allowed) and releases them directly (in a report) or indirectly (leaked to press). Does this violate any (e.g. privacy) US Laws? Or, if there is law for a court subpoena to keep records private (e.g. a Grand Jury), did/could Congress exempt itself from these laws? </p>

<p>The power to issue subpoenas is created by rule, so while an individual Congressman cannot currently issue a subpoena (instead a committee does), the rule can be changed. So it would be possible for a Congressman to issue a subpoena. He could release information obtained via the subpoena, and is immunized from legal repercussions by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Speech and Debate Clause</a> of the Constitution. However, there is no immunity against action by Congress, so he could be disciplined under <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">House</a> or <a href="https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Senate</a> rules. Disclosure might be a violation of House rule VII 3.(b)(2),
or committee rules established under Rule X(11)(f)
or XI 3.(a)(4), or other House rules or committee rules, which can be modified by majority vote. The House has no power to imprison its members, but they can be censured, or expelled by vote of 2/3 of the members (Art. 1 sec 5 of the Constitution).</p>

<p>If the heart of your question is, under the current rules, has anything been done wrong, I would say no. Other than the special case of a grand jury, our system allows/requires public dissemination of information regarding prosecutions. </p>

<p>Another answer refers to House Rule VII 3.(b)(2) - it is</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>2)  An  investigative  record  that  contains  personal  data 
  relating  to  a  specific  living  person  (the  disclosure  of 
  which  would  be  an  unwarranted  invasion  of  personal  privacy), 
  an  administrative record relating to personnel, or a record relating
  to a hearing that was closed  under  clause  2(g)(2)  of  rule  XI 
  shall be made available if it has been in existence for 50 years.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My reading of that is  <em>if</em> the personal information is not made public as required by default in the immediately preceding section, it must be made available in 50 years. It does not require secrecy of anything for 50 years. It is rule about disclose, not a rule about not disclosing.</p>

privacy subpoena disclosure