Following a string of high-profile investigations targeting Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, congressional ethics investigations are more visible than ever. Indeed, as we recently explored, the House Ethics Committee in particular may be moving toward a more active and transparent enforcement posture, with its most recent actions potentially signaling a period of heightened scrutiny of interactions between private parties and Members of Congress and their staff.

For private parties, this evolving environment raises new risks. Even when not directly implicated in alleged misconduct, private corporations and individuals—including banks and financial institutions, telecommunications and insurance providers, and lobbyists and lobbying firms—are frequently drawn into congressional ethics matters as witnesses or custodians of records once an investigation is underway. In addition to being called upon to respond to sweeping document requests and demands for witness testimony, reputational and legal risks arising out of a congressional ethics investigation are ever-present.

In light of recent developments, it is more important than ever to understand the congressional ethics investigative process to manage compliance obligations effectively and mitigate exposure to politically charged investigations. This client alert provides a comprehensive overview of congressional ethics inquiries, examines recent procedural changes and challenges, and highlights the potential implications for private actors interacting with Congress.

*                       *                       *

Relying on constitutional authority to establish rules and discipline their Members, both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies—the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House Committee on Ethics—tasked with investigating alleged misconduct by their Members, officers, and staff. Historically, these self-regulatory processes have balanced confidentiality with transparency, with each Committee’s investigations conducted largely out of public view. However, recent changes in the House, including limits on the independent Office of Congressional Conduct (“OCC”), have created new uncertainty for congressional actors and private parties alike.

• Jurisdictional Authority: The Senate Ethics Committee is a bipartisan, six-member body authorized to investigate alleged misconduct by a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate. Drawing on various authorities, the Committee’s jurisdiction includes alleged violations of the Senate Rules, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any law, rule, or regulation related to the performance of official Senate duties, as well as any other conduct that reflects unfavorably on the Senate as a whole—such as improper interactions with private entities. The Committee is empowered to conduct investigations, recommend disciplinary actions, and refer violations of law to appropriate authorities. In conjunction with this work, the Committee issues annual public reports summarizing the number and disposition of complaints it receives.

• Investigative Process:
  • Complaint Submission: The Committee’s investigative process begins when the Committee receives a complaint or becomes aware of credible information suggesting a possible violation. Complaints may be submitted by any individual or group, and the Committee may also act on its own initiative. The Committee must then initiate a preliminary inquiry to ensure the allegations fall within its jurisdiction and are credible.
  • Preliminary Inquiry: During a preliminary inquiry, the Committee gathers initial evidence through witness interviews and the review of relevant documents. During this phase, the Committee is empowered to issue subpoenas for documents or witness testimony, including from private companies and individuals. The Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee retain discretion to determine the appropriate duration, scope, and conduct of a preliminary inquiry.

     
    If the Committee determines that the evidence lacks “substantial credibility,” the matter will be dismissed—which may be accomplished either by a vote of the Committee or the Committee Chair and Vice Chair acting jointly on behalf of the Committee—with a notice provided to both the complainant and the subject of the allegations. For inadvertent, technical, or de minimis violations, the Committee may issue a public or private letter of admonition rather than pursuing formal discipline.

  • Adjudicatory Review: If the preliminary inquiry reveals “substantial credible evidence” of a violation that cannot be resolved through admonition, the Committee proceeds to an adjudicatory review. The scope and duration of the Committee’s adjudicatory review depend on the degree of further investigation that is necessary to ascertain whether a violation occurred. The Committee is authorized to engage outside counsel to assist in conducting an adjudicatory review. In these instances, the Committee has historically relied on experienced private sector attorneys to lead such investigations.

     
    Respondents are notified within five working days of the decision to conduct such a review, provided with details of the potential violation and the evidence supporting it, and afforded the right to a hearing before any disciplinary recommendations are made. During the review, the Committee receives periodic confidential progress reports, and a final confidential adjudicatory review report is submitted upon the review’s conclusion, detailing investigative findings and any recommended disciplinary actions.

  • Recommendation, Sanctions, and Appeal: After the Committee receives an adjudicatory review report, the Committee prepares a report for the full Senate, including a recommendation or proposed resolution for sanctions. Sanctions for confirmed violations may range from restitution or reprimand to censure or expulsion for Members, or dismissal and suspension for officers and employees. Reports and recommendations are generally made public unless confidentiality is required, as explored below. Individuals subject to sanctions may appeal to the full Senate within 30 days.

• Confidentiality: Throughout an investigation, the Committee maintains strict confidentiality, issuing public statements only when it determines that disclosure is appropriate under Senate Rules. If the Committee opts to withhold a public statement, all allegations are handled confidentially, adhering to a practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of a matter under review.

House Ethics Investigations

• Jurisdictional Authority: House ethics investigations operate under a dual-tiered system involving the OCC and the House Ethics Committee.

    
  The OCC—created in 2008 and previously known as the Office of Congressional Ethics—is the first independent, non-partisan body authorized by the House to review complaints from the public, advocacy organizations, and Members themselves. Led by a six-member Board, the OCC’s mandate is to conduct fact-finding and refer credible cases to the Committee. Importantly, the OCC’s jurisdiction is limited to current Members, officers, and employees, meaning its work cannot proceed unless at least one subject is a Member, officer, or employees of the House. Although it can collect testimony and documents from both congressional actors and private actors alike, the OCC does not have subpoena power, and the D.C. Circuit has ruled that parties may not be prosecuted for obstructing an OCC investigation.

  The OCC supplements, but does not replace, the Committee. The Committee—a bipartisan panel of 10 Members—is the only body in the House authorized to adjudicate ethics violations, issue subpoenas, and impose sanctions for such violations. The Committee issues annual public reports summarizing its activities, including the number and disposition of investigations it conducted and referrals from OCC.

Office of Congressional Conduct

• Investigative Process:
  • Complaint Submission and Evaluation: The OCC’s investigative process begins with the submission of information, which can be made through an online form or by email. Complaints must include the complainant’s contact information, supporting documentation, and a signed declaration under the False Statements Act. The OCC Board may authorize a preliminary review if an initial review determines there is a “reasonable basis” to believe a violation may have occurred and that the matter is within OCC jurisdiction. To proceed, at least two Board members—one appointed by the Speaker and one by the Minority Leader—must agree in writing.
  • Preliminary Review: If authorized, a preliminary review begins with a notification to both the Committee and the subject of the investigation, which includes a statement detailing the nature of the investigation. The review must be completed within 30 days, during which the OCC assesses whether there is “probable cause” to believe an ethics violation occurred. Advancement to a second-phase review requires an affirmative vote from at least three Board members; four votes are required to terminate the review before completion. In either case, notifications are sent to both the Committee and the subject of the investigation.
  • Second-Phase Review and Referral: During the second-phase review, the OCC gathers evidence through witness interviews, requests for records, and examination of financial, lobbying-related, or other documentation. Subjects are advised of their right to legal representation, and this right cannot be held against them. This stage of the investigation must be completed within 45 calendar days, with a possible 14-day extension upon majority vote of the Board. Before the Board decides to send a recommendation to the Committee, the subject of the investigation may speak or submit a written statement, but they cannot introduce new evidence, and their lawyer can be there but must submit any legal arguments in writing beforehand.
  • Reporting and Recommendations: If upon a review of a staff investigative report four OCC Board agree that there is “substantial reason to believe” a violation occurred, the case is referred to the Committee with a recommendation for further investigation. Tie votes result in referral without recommendation. The Board may also refer the matter to another governmental body.
     
    Reports to the Committee include the nature of the allegations, voting outcomes, and findings of fact, while excluding names of cooperative witnesses. The Board can also provide descriptions of missing information and recommendations regarding the issuance of subpoenas. In addition to the Committee, a copy of the final report is also shared with the subject of the investigation.

• Confidentiality: Unless and until the Committee releases an OCC report to the public, all information gathered during OCC investigations remains confidential. The OCC adheres to stringent confidentiality protocols to protect the integrity of its investigations and the privacy of involved parties. After receiving a submission, the OCC cannot disclose details regarding whether the Board has authorized a review or if an investigation has been conducted. The OCC also refrains from issuing statements that identify subjects of ongoing investigations. Moreover, when OCC staff engage with third-party witnesses, they maintain this confidentiality by not disclosing the identities of the investigation subjects, ensuring that the investigative process is not compromised and that the rights and reputations of all parties involved are safeguarded.

House Ethics Committee

• Investigative Process:
  • Review of OCC Findings: Upon receiving an OCC referral, the Committee may dismiss the matter, conduct hearings, or initiate disciplinary proceedings.
     
    If the OCC is reviewing a matter that is also under an ongoing or completed investigation by the Committee, the Committee may request that the OCC halt its review and refer the matter to the Committee for immediate consideration. In circumstances where the Committee does not resolve the matter, it must inform the OCC Board, allowing them the opportunity to resume and complete the suspended review under standard investigation protocols.
  • Independent Investigations: The Committee also has authority to open its own investigations without OCC involvement. Upon receiving a complaint, the Committee may establish an investigative subcommittee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations. If the Committee finds a violation has occurred, sanctions can range from letters of reproval to expulsion from the House. There is no restriction on the timing and scope of an investigation conducted by the Committee.
  • During an investigation, certain practices of the Committee differ markedly from the OCC’s protocols:
    • Complaint Origination: Complaints to the Ethics Committee itself typically must originate from other Members, officers, or employees, instead of outside parties.
    • Scope of Inquiry: The Committee may vote to expand the scope of its investigation beyond the allegations that initiated its inquiry.
    • Subpoena Power: Unlike the OCC, the Committee possesses the power to subpoena witnesses, including private actors, for documents and testimony and may refer uncooperative witnesses to the full House to hold them in contempt of Congress.
    • Reporting and Challenges to Finding: After completing an inquiry, an investigative subcommittee can vote to adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation upon finding substantial evidence of a violation. The Statement is provided to the subject of the inquiry, who has 30 days to submit a written and sworn answer—although submitting a Motion for a Bill of Particulars can extend this period—or generally 10 days to file a Motion to Dismiss if they believe the allegations do not constitute a violation or fall outside the Committee’s jurisdiction.
        
      If no violation is identified, the subcommittee sends a report to the Committee summarizing the inquiry’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
    • Adjudicatory Hearings: If necessary, an adjudicatory subcommittee holds hearings to determine whether violations are proven by clear and convincing evidence, while considering whether to issue subpoenas to gather necessary evidence. Both parties are given access to evidence and witness details beforehand, and hearings are generally public. Once testimony and evidence are reviewed, the subcommittee decides if each count is proven, with results reported back to the Committee.
• Confidentiality: Unlike the OCC, which generally operates under secrecy while conducting an investigation, the Committee must publicize its plans to investigate Members prior to resolution of the allegations against the official.
  • Public Release of OCC Reports: The Committee generally must publicly release the OCC’s report and findings within 45 days, although it can vote to extend this period by another 45 days. If the Committee decides to form an investigative subcommittee, the release can be delayed but must occur within a year. Reports recommending dismissal need not be released if the Committee concurs with dismissal. Additionally, public release can be deferred if a law enforcement authority requests a delay while the law enforcement authority pursues its own investigation.

Recent procedural changes have significantly affected the ability of the OCC to conduct timely and effective investigations. At the start of the 119th Congress, Republican leadership delayed appointing OCC Board members and limited hiring of OCC staff to the first 30 days of the legislative session. This effectively shut down the office’s operations for several months, and resulted in the Board lacking a quorum to approve investigations, inadequate staffing to pursue investigations, and an inability to finalize reports. Even when fully staffed, the OCC remains hampered by its lack of subpoena power and enforcement authority ultimately resting in the House Ethics Committee.

The OCC’s reduced investigative capacity has direct implications for the private sector and other non-congressional actors. First, a diminished OCC may lead to more politically reactive and less predictable investigations originating from the House Ethics Committee, potentially resulting in abrupt, high-visibility document and testimony requests. Second, ethics matters that are not or cannot be resolved by the OCC can evolve into criminal investigations, creating parallel legal exposure for third parties. Even where a party is not itself accused of misconduct, private actors may face reputational risks simply from association with politically charged inquiries, which are often highly burdensome and distracting.

In this evolving political environment, private companies and organizations that interact with Members of Congress—through contracts, financial transactions, advocacy, or other dealings—should have clear internal compliance protocols and a plan for responding to congressional ethics inquiries. Adopting these practices early can help parties manage compliance obligations, coordinate responses, and mitigate reputational harm should an investigation arise.

If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this client alert, please contact the following members of our Congressional Investigations practice.