Senate Democrats Invoke Rare Rule to Demand Epstein Files From DOJ

The Jeffrey Epstein matter has roiled the political world in profound and unexpected ways. Amidst this tumult, Senate Democrats are invoking a rarely used law — 5 U.S.C. § 2954 (Section 2954) — in an effort to compel the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce materials related to its investigation of Epstein. On July 29, 2025, eight Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi formally requesting “all documents, files, evidence, or other materials in the possession of DOJ or FBI related to United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein” pursuant to Section 2954. Should DOJ refuse to comply with this request — which seems likely — the Democrats must decide whether to pursue judicial remedies to obtain these materials.

Section 2954

The minority party in Congress has limited power to compel the Executive Branch to produce information because, generally, only a committee chair can issue a subpoena. In 1928, however, Congress enacted Section 2954, which establishes a vehicle for a subset of individual members to seek information from the Executive Branch. Referred to as the “Rule of Five” in the Senate, or the “Rule of Seven” in the House, Section 2954 provides that five senators on HSGAC, or seven members on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, can request from an executive agency any information related to the respective committee’s jurisdiction and the agency “shall” provide it. Because only five senators or seven representatives are needed to wield this power, Section 2954 provides the minority party with a mechanism to compel information from the Executive Branch without the agreement of the committee chair. Or at least that is how it appears on the face of the statute.

Enforceability of the Maneuver

The Senate Democrats’ July 29 letter to Attorney General Bondi seemingly meets both requirements for invoking Section 2954: 1) it included eight senators, surpassing the five-senator requirement, and 2) it articulated that the request was related to HSGAC’s jurisdiction. However, it remains to be seen whether DOJ will comply with the Democrats’ request for the Epstein materials. Assuming that DOJ does not comply, the Democrats must decide what to do next, which may include pursuing litigation.

But whether the Democrats can prevail in any such litigation is unclear. Section 2954 is rarely invoked, so there is little case law on its enforceability. Democrats last relied on Section 2954 in 2017 when eight members of the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) requesting documents related to the Old Post Office Building, which had become the Trump International Hotel. When GSA refused the request, 17 Democrats on the House Oversight Committee filed a lawsuit seeking an order directing GSA to provide the records. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia initially declined to do so, having concluded that the Democrats’ claim of institutional harm did not confer standing. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, and reversed and remanded.

After the litigation began, GSA produced a limited set of records that would have been subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2021, the Democrats — by then having become the majority — sent GSA a new letter seeking many of the documents that they had sought in 2017. This time, GSA produced responsive, nonpublic documents. At the same time, though, GSA sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In its petition for certiorari, the Biden DOJ argued that a lawsuit by members of Congress to enforce a request under Section 2954 “conflicts with [the Supreme Court’s] precedents and contradicts historical practice stretching to the beginning of the Republic.” The Supreme Court agreed to take the case but, on June 6, 2023, after having received most of their requested documents, the House Oversight Committee Democrats voluntarily dismissed the case, leaving the case law in limbo.

The Democrats may decide that it is a compelling moment to litigate the issue, given the current public and political discourse about the Epstein files, their potentially explosive contents, and some meaningful interest from certain Republican quarters. Such litigation would give the courts a new, high-profile opportunity to clarify whether this little-used weapon in Congress’ arsenal gives the minority party some real power in congressional oversight.

*          *          *

If you have questions about this Enforcement Edge post, please contact the authors or any of their colleagues in Arnold & Porter’s Congressional Oversight & Investigations practice.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.