(The Center Square) – The legal argument over the subpoena of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis by a Georgia Senate committee could be a moot point because Willis is testifying at a hearing next week, her attorney said.
The Supreme Court of Georgia heard oral arguments Tuesday on Willis’ challenge of the subpoena from the Senate Special Committee on Investigations.
Willis’ attorney, former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, told the court, “We’re showing up,” referring to the Dec. 17 meeting.
The committee subpoenaed Willis to testify about the election interference case she brought against President Donald Trump. Willis sued to void the subpoena.
Barnes argued the subpoena was moot because the General Assembly issued it after it had adjourned sine die. When a legislature adjourns sine die, it effectively closes the session.
“For over 150 years, the General Assembly has been very reluctant, particularly when it is only one house of the General Assembly, to give to a regular or special committee of either house the right to exercise the power of subpoena. And for good reason,” Barnes said.
Josh Belinfante, attorney for Committee Chairman Bill Cowsert, R-Athens, argued that the subpoena was not void.
“This is not a traditional mootness case,” said Belinfante. “The attack is that the subpoena is void and there is simply zero constitutional text to support that argument and there is no reason this court should adopt it now. Nor does the fact that the witness has agreed to testify on Dec. 17th change the calculus today. We agree that if the witness comes and testifies and actually answers questions, it may.”
Justice Shawn Ellen LaGrua asked Belinfante what action he would take next if Willis does not appear at the Dec. 17th meeting.
Belinfante said they would “start the whole process over again and that’s one reason why this court should decide the issue now.”
There was also disagreement over the validity of two separate subpoenas – one issued in 2024 and another one issued in 2025 – and whether the most recent one renders the first one void.
Barnes said his position is that the first one is void because it was “reissued” by the 2025 committee, and that they have acknowledged service of the 2025 subpoena.
Belinfante said there was “no language” that the subpoena was “reissued” and that the second one was separate from the first.
If Willis testifies before the special committee on the 17th, Belinfante said they would notify the court. He reminded them that they had previously scheduled dates for Willis to testify, which “did not work out.”
She previously agreed to appear at the committee’s November meeting, but did not show up, citing scheduling conflicts.
