NEW: Judge Smacks Down District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s Restraining Order Request Against Jim Jordan

On Monday, a federal judge in New York dealt a blow to the efforts of Alvin Bragg, Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, to prevent a House investigation into his office’s handling of certain high-profile cases related to the Trump indictment.

Bragg had filed a complaint and motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction against Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Mark F. Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed by Bragg as a special assistant district attorney, to block the committee from obtaining documents and information related to his office’s handling of cases involving former President Donald Trump, his family, and their associates.

https://t.co/60cewA5Nc0 pic.twitter.com/wZ4X6SVDLy

— Alvin Bragg (@ManhattanDA) April 6, 2023

However, the judge denied Bragg’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily barred the House from obtaining the documents, and ordered him to serve the defendants with the complaint and motion before 9 p.m. on Monday.

In her order, the judge said that Bragg had not met the standard for a preliminary injunction and that the balance of harms weighed against granting the injunction. She also set a hearing for April 19 to consider Bragg’s motion for a permanent injunction.

BREAKING: House Judiciary chair Rep. Jim Jordan has subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, who resigned from the Manhattan DA's office in February 2022 over Bragg's then reluctance to pursue the case against Trump.

The subpoena directs Pomerantz to appear before the committee April 20th. pic.twitter.com/GCIRotcxxc

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 6, 2023

“The Court declines to enter the proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall effect service on the Defendants of the Complaint together with a copy of this Order,” wrote the lawsuit.

Bragg had argued that the House investigation was unconstitutional and violated his office’s sovereignty. He claimed that the House’s inquiry was an attempt to interfere with his office’s ongoing criminal investigations, and that the House had no legitimate legislative purpose for seeking the documents.

But the judge rejected these arguments, stating that the House had a legitimate legislative purpose for seeking the documents and that Bragg had not shown that the investigation would interfere with his office’s ability to conduct its criminal investigations.

The House Committee on the Judiciary had previously issued subpoenas to Bragg’s office seeking information related to the investigation of Trump and his associates. The committee has said that it is investigating whether Bragg’s office is being influenced by political considerations in its handling of cases.

First, they indict a president for no crime.

Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) April 11, 2023

This decision represents a significant setback for Bragg’s efforts to resist the House investigation. The judge’s order means that Bragg will have to comply with the committee’s subpoenas and provide the requested documents and information. The hearing on April 19 will determine whether Bragg can obtain a permanent injunction to block the House investigation.