So You Got a Grand Jury Subpoena—Now What?

A March 11 ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reaffirmed the federal court’s increasing scrutiny of federal prosecutors’ use of federal grand juries.[1]

The court’s opinion is a reminder that while federal investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. Nevertheless, whether you are an individual or a corporation, receiving a federal grand jury subpoena can carry significant consequences should you fail to properly protect your rights.

How Does the Grand Jury System Work?

The grand jury system serves as the main way federal prosecutors investigate crimes and obtain criminal indictments. Grand juries serve as a powerful tool by which prosecutors obtain documents and compel the testimony of witnesses, all without the presence of a defendant who might otherwise object or ask questions of their own.

Because the prosecutor controls the evidence obtained by and presented to a grand jury, indictments have become increasingly straightforward for prosecutors to obtain over the last several decades. The lack of defense presence and minimal burden of proof at the grand jury stage form the basis for the ubiquitous saying that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

Grand Jury as Gatekeeper

But the power of a grand jury ultimately belongs not to the prosecutor but to the grand jury itself. Grand juries are not intended to be a rubber stamp for prosecutions; rather, they are gatekeepers tasked under the U.S. Constitution with ensuring prosecutors do not abuse their powers. And, in the past year, grand juries have exercised some skepticism of prosecutions.

For example, a federal grand jury reportedly twice-refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, and a separate grand jury reportedly refused to indict democratic lawmakers that prosecutors were investigating for a video in which members of the military were instructed not to obey illegal orders.[2] In one of the most famous recent cases, a grand jury refused to indict a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during a protest.[3]

The Grand Jury Subpoena

The grand jury subpoena is an investigative tool that allows prosecutors to compel people and entities to provide documents, evidence, and even testimony to assist with federal investigations and, ultimately, obtain criminal indictments. It is one of the most powerful tools of the grand jury process.

When a company or an individual receives a grand jury subpoena, they are compelled to participate in the government’s investigation unless they can convince a court that the subpoena violates their rights, or is in some other way defective. If they believe a subpoena is defective or violates their rights, subpoena recipients can file a motion with the court to quash—or cancel—the subpoena.

The recent grand jury ruling is a reminder that defense attorneys and the courts play an important role in safeguarding the grand jury process by moving to quash grand jury subpoenas and ruling upon the same.

When Courts Step In

Federal courts may agree to quash or modify a grand jury subpoena for a limited number of reasons. For example, a subpoena to someone being investigated for a crime may violate their Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and other constitutional protections.[4] Or, a subpoena may seek documents or information that are protected by an applicable privilege from discovery, such as the attorney-client privilege.[5] A court may also quash or modify a subpoena that seeks irrelevant information, is vague, overly broad, or that is unduly burdensome on the subpoena recipient.[6] In recent months, however, courts have increasingly agreed to quash subpoenas based upon a previously rare concern: that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose.

Grand juries have broad investigative powers and “can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because [the Government] wants assurance that it is not.”[7] But that power is not unlimited, and “[g]rand juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor may they select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.”[8]

In the past few decades, courts have found certain, rare instances where a grand jury subpoena should be quashed because it carries an improper (but not expressly malicious) purpose, such as trial preparation. Looking further back, there are rare examples from the civil rights era of courts limiting grand jury investigations based upon far more concerning conduct, such as a 1978 decision by the Fifth Circuit that limited an improper grand jury investigation into a Black citizen’s group that had criticized a prosecutor.[9]

Summing it Up: The Recent Ruling

The D.C. District’s March 11 order reflects the fact that although findings of malicious intent and improper purpose are historically rare, they are increasingly considered and applied by federal courts. In that case, the court quashed grand jury subpoenas that had been issued to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as part of prosecutors’ criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.[10] The court based its decision, in large part, upon numerous tweets and public statements by the president that expressed anger towards Powell and a desire that he resign from his position as Federal Reserve Chairman.[11]

Applying case law that more often was used to determine whether a grand jury was being used for trial preparation, the court quashed the subpoenas because their “sole or dominant” purpose was improper.[12] The court found that the purpose of the grand jury investigation was to “sic prosecutions on people because the President dislikes them” and to “use criminal subpoenas as a form of official coercion” to get Powell to either resign from his position or acquiesce to the president’s policy demands.[13]

As such, the court found that the grand jury investigation constituted one of those rare instances where an investigation was born out of an improper purpose with malice and intent to harass.[14] In quashing the subpoenas, the court effectively ended the government’s investigation before it began.

We Can Help

If you or your company have received a federal grand jury subpoena, Maslon’s investigations team is available to help you navigate the process and ensure your rights are not violated. Please contact us if you have questions or would like assistance.

[1] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 (JEB) (D.C. Dist. Ct. Mar. 11, 2026).

[2] See Max Matza, Grand Jury Declines to Indict Letitia James for Second Time in a Week, BBC (Dec. 11, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrjj30vx8eo; Brandon Drenon, Grand Jury Declines to Charge Democrats in ‘Illegal Orders’ Video, BBC (Feb. 11, 2026), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2jnyy2yyo.

[3] Alan Feurer et al., Prosecutors Fail to Obtain Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent, New York Times (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/politics/trump-sandwich-assault-indictment-justice-department.html.

[4] In re Grand Jury, John Doe No. G.J.2005-2, 478 F.3d 581, 585 (4th Cir. 2007) (“Rule 17(c) offers a vehicle for a subpoenaed party to assert a constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege).

[5] In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2007 (“Attorney-client communications and attorney work product are privileged and are not ordinarily discoverable—even by the grand jury.”)

[6] John Doe, 478 F.3d at 585.

[7] United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991).

[8] Id.

[9] Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1978).

[10] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 at 3.

[11] For example, “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of the Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . . Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!” Id. at 1 (quoting Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (July 31, 2025, at 7:11 AM), https://perma.cc/PX9L-RPSD).

[12] Id. at 10.

[13] Id. at 16.

[14] Id. at 22.