The Kennedy-Hoffa Showdown: Why Congressional Investigations Need Greater Powers and Procedural Leeway than Prosecutions

Nicholas C. Stewart, Maryland Court of Appeals

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

This 9,400-word article uses the feud between Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa as a case study to examine how and why congressional investigations differ from criminal prosecutions. It begins with a discussion of the 1950s congressional investigation into labor racketeering. Armed with this illustrative example, the article explores the relationship among (1) the purposes of congressional investigations (namely lawmaking), (2) the powers enjoyed by committees to achieve these purposes, and (3) the protections afforded committee witnesses. Highlighting the dangers inherent in congressional investigations, this article concludes that the ultimate goal of passing or amending laws presents unique challenges that require greater powers and procedural leeway.

By comparing congressional investigations and criminal prosecutions, this article sheds an elucidative light on their distinctive roles and attributes. Moreover, the article provides practitioners and students alike greater context on the current debate over Congress’s investigatory power, as reflected in the recent oil spill and steroids-in-baseball hearings. Finally, the article attempts to lay the informational foundation necessary for possible, subsequent reforms.