Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis recently filed a motion in Georgia’s court to prevent state legislators from enforcing subpoenas that seek documents and testimony related to her office’s investigation of former President Donald Trump. The subpoenas were issued by a legislative committee, led by Georgia State Senator Bill Cowsert, which has been investigating Willis and her office for years, particularly focusing on how public funds were used in the Trump-related investigation.
Cowsert, a Republican from Athens, chairs the Senate Special Committee on Investigations, which has scrutinized Willis’ efforts to investigate Trump’s alleged interference in Georgia’s 2020 election. The committee’s primary concern is whether any public funds earmarked for other purposes were misused in the investigation. Willis had been scheduled to testify at a public hearing in September 2024, but she did not appear. Shortly after, Cowsert moved to enforce subpoenas for documents and testimony that had been issued in the previous year.
In response, Willis filed for a permanent injunction, seeking to prevent the enforcement of these subpoenas. In December 2024, a judge ruled in favor of the committee’s authority to issue subpoenas. However, Willis’ recent filing argues that the subpoenas should now be dismissed entirely, citing changes in the legislative landscape following the general election.
Willis’ motion contends that the recent election resulted in a new General Assembly, which means the committee that issued the subpoenas is no longer the same entity. The Senate reauthorized Cowsert’s committee, but Willis argues that this reauthorization created a new committee, not a continuation of the previous one. The motion highlights that this new committee could have different members, which could lead to different actions, and thus, the previous subpoenas should no longer be valid.
The motion further argues that the new committee operates under different rules, including a new restriction that requires a majority vote before a subpoena can be issued. The previous version of the committee did not have this requirement, which Willis claims changes the dynamics of how subpoenas can be enforced. According to her, the reconstituted committee is empowered to issue new subpoenas, but it should not be able to enforce those issued by the old committee.
In her filing, Willis uses a hypothetical scenario to strengthen her argument. She suggests that if a previous committee was formed to investigate a particular issue, but some of its members were defeated in reelection, the committee would not have the authority to continue its work after the new members were sworn in. This analogy is meant to illustrate that the new committee should not be able to enforce subpoenas from the prior legislative session, especially since the new committee may have different goals and priorities.
Willis also notes that the original subpoenas were issued in late August 2024, with a compliance deadline of September 2024. Since the new General Assembly has now been sworn in, the subpoenas issued by the old committee are effectively moot. She argues that if the new committee is still interested in obtaining the testimony and documents it seeks, it has ample time to issue new subpoenas before the expiration of the current legislative session.
In conclusion, Willis is requesting the court to dismiss the subpoenas entirely, arguing that the new legislative committee does not have the authority to enforce the subpoenas issued by its predecessor. She also contends that the new committee can issue its own subpoenas if it wishes to pursue the investigation further. The motion essentially seeks to put an end to the legal efforts to compel Willis to testify and provide documents related to the Trump investigation, as the legal circumstances surrounding the subpoenas have changed with the new General Assembly.
