Former Apollo Global Management chief executive Leon Black filed a lawsuit on Sept. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that two subpoenas issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform are invalid. The subpoenas, served in June, demand Black’s deposition and the production of nondisclosure agreements he signed with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The suit challenges the committee’s authority to compel testimony and documents from a private citizen. If the court sides with Black, it could limit congressional investigative power and reduce the information available to Epstein survivors about alleged protective arrangements.
In June, the Oversight Committee conducted a voluntary interview with Black. When he declined to answer further questions about the NDAs, the committee issued two subpoenas: one for a sworn deposition and another for copies of the agreements that reportedly covered Black’s payments to Epstein for financial services.
Black walked out of a scheduled deposition on Thursday, Sept. 3, and instead filed the lawsuit, arguing the subpoenas are beyond the committee’s statutory authority. His attorneys contend the NDAs have no relevance to the committee’s inquiry and that the subpoenas lack a legitimate connection to its stated purpose.
Republican Oversight Chair James Comer condemned Black’s refusal to testify, calling it “hiding behind litigation” and urging contempt proceedings. While his comments add a political dimension, the legal question remains the scope of congressional subpoena power.
The committee’s investigation focuses on two issues: whether federal authorities failed Epstein’s victims and whether Epstein used NDAs to shield influential clients, including Black, from scrutiny. Multiple reports have identified Black as a fee‑paying client of Epstein over several years, a relationship that could illuminate how Epstein’s network operated.
If a judge upholds the subpoenas, Congress would retain the ability to obtain documents from private individuals tied to high‑profile investigations, reinforcing oversight mechanisms. If the court blocks the subpoenas, Epstein survivors and advocacy groups could lose a potential source of evidence for civil or criminal actions.
Legal scholars note that congressional investigative authority derives from the Constitution’s grant of powers to aid legislative functions, but courts balance that authority against individual rights and relevance of requested material. Black’s lawsuit asks the judge to declare the committee cannot compel his deposition or the NDAs, directly testing that balance.
No judicial decision has been issued as of the filing date, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for later this month. The outcome will determine whether Congress can pursue similar subpoenas in future probes of elite misconduct and will shape the information landscape available to Epstein survivors seeking accountability.