A Georgia court has firmly rejected an attempt by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to quash subpoenas issued by state legislators investigating her handling of the Trump racketeering (RICO) and election interference case. The ruling delivers a significant blow to Willis, dismissing her arguments as legally unsound and setting an important precedent regarding legislative investigative powers.
The subpoenas in question stem from an ongoing inquiry into the use of public funds by Willis’ office, particularly whether any money was improperly diverted during the investigation into Donald Trump. The state Senate’s Special Committee on Investigations, led by a Republican senator, has sought Willis’ testimony for years, issuing a subpoena in August 2024. Initially, Willis was expected to appear at a hearing in September, but she failed to do so. This led to renewed efforts to enforce subpoenas for both testimony and documents. In response, Willis sought a permanent injunction to prevent their enforcement.
In December 2024, a Fulton County judge ruled against Willis, denying her petition to block the subpoenas. Following this setback, she pursued a different legal strategy in January, arguing that the subpoenas had been rendered invalid due to the election of a new General Assembly in November. She claimed that the reauthorization of the committee after the election meant it was technically a different entity from the one that had originally issued the subpoenas.
The court, however, rejected this argument outright, finding it would set an unreasonable precedent that could undermine legislative investigations. The judge noted that if such a claim were accepted, any subpoena recipient could simply delay compliance until a new legislative term began, effectively nullifying the power of investigative committees. The ruling emphasized the potential consequences of such a loophole, including lost evidence, fading memories, and overall inefficiency in legislative oversight.
The court further ruled that Willis’ legal reasoning was flawed, stating that the authority she cited did not support her claim that the subpoenas should be considered void after the reconstitution of the General Assembly. The judge also addressed Willis’ objections regarding specific subpoena requests, finding them insufficient.
Among her claims, Willis asserted attorney-client privilege in response to three specific requests. However, the court found her justification lacking, questioning who the attorney and client were in this context and whether the communication was truly for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The judge directed Willis to provide clearer explanations or withdraw her objections.
Similarly, the court found that her invocation of the work-product privilege meant to protect materials prepared in anticipation of litigation did not apply. These particular subpoena requests related to Willis’ hiring of former special prosecutor Nathan Wade and her personal relationship with him, which the court suggested were not protected under work-product privilege.
Additionally, Willis cited law enforcement privilege in response to another request. The judge suggested that this claim was also misapplied and recommended she consider a different legal basis for withholding the material.
This ruling represents a significant setback for Willis, as it not only compels her compliance with the subpoenas but also weakens her ability to shield certain information from scrutiny. It reinforces the authority of legislative committees to conduct investigations and ensures that state officials cannot evade subpoenas simply by outlasting the legislative term that issued them.
