The Manhattan District Attorney‘s Office has dropped its appeal after a federal judge ruled that an ex–prosecutor in his office can be subpoenaed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio).
The decision comes after the parties reached an agreement on testimony from former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to the House Judiciary Committee.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, had filed an appeal after U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected his request Wednesday asking for a temporary restraining order and injunction.
The agreement stipulates that a lawyer from Bragg‘s office will be present at the testimony who can make objections.
A spokesperson for Jordan said that Pomerantz‘s deposition will take place on May 12.
“This evening, the Manhattan District Attorney‘s Office withdrew its appeal in Bragg v. Jordan. Mr. Pomerantz‘s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance,” Jordan‘s spokesperson said.
The dispute centers around former President Donald Trump, who was indicted on March 30 as part of a years–long investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney‘s Office for hush money payments. He pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Bragg had accused Jordan in a federal lawsuit of trying to intimidate him because of the prosecution of Trump.
In her ruling, Vyskocil said that the subpoena is valid. She also wrote that both sides should, “speak with one another to reach a mutually agreeable compromise regarding how the deposition of Mr. Pomerantz will proceed.”
The Manhattan DA spokesperson said that the resolution “ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe.”
Jordan‘s spokesperson said that they are “looking forward to Pomerantz‘s appearance.”
The case is a reminder of the political dogfights that can occur between elected state and federal actors. While Bragg is presumed to be acting in good faith, as Vyskocil said, the resolution of the appeal is a reminder of the power of the courts in settling disputes between political actors.
