In the late 1790s, declaring contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature, in the same way that the British Parliament could make findings of contempt of Parliament—early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:
Robert Randal, for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795.
William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800.
Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor, for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.
In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.[2]
The last time Congress arrested and detained a witness was in 1935.[3] Since then, it has instead referred cases to the United States Department of Justice.[4] The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege.[5][6]
