Can Congress subpoena a president's medical records and how have courts ruled?
Executive summary
Congress can and does issue subpoenas seeking a president’s medical records or testimony from presidential physicians, but legal battles and privacy statutes make enforcement contested; courts have applied heightened separation-of-powers scrutiny after Trump v. Mazars and have sometimes found ordinary state confidentiality laws inapplicable to congressional investigations while recognizing privacy interests [1]. House committees in 2024–25 threatened or issued subpoenas for President Biden’s medical-related witnesses and records, and physicians have invoked privileges or constitutional rights in response [2] [3].
1. What power Congress claims and how it uses subpoenas
Congressional committees rely on broad investigatory authority to issue subpoenas compelling documents and depositions, including from executive-branch employees and outside custodians, as part of oversight and potential legislative purposes; committees have routinely threatened or issued subpoenas relating to presidential health, for example the House Oversight actions concerning White House aides and the White House physician [4] [2] [5]. Those subpoenas can take forms that require attendance for testimony (deposition/witness subpoenas) or production of records (subpoena duces tecum) [6].
2. Legal friction: privacy laws, physician‑patient rules, and HIPAA
Medical privacy frameworks complicate straightforward compliance. Federal rules like HIPAA govern disclosure but provide permissible pathways for judicial and administrative proceedings; state confidentiality laws and professional ethics also shape whether a physician will voluntarily disclose or resist a congressional request. Analysts note that some protections—such as authorizations required for psychotherapy or substance‑use records—remain in force, and producers must often follow the “minimum necessary” standard and state law when responding [6]. Committees expect pushback on statutory and ethical grounds from physicians and the White House [5] [3].
3. Courts’ approach: heightened scrutiny when the subject is the President
The Supreme Court’s post‑2019 Mazars decision is central: it held congressional subpoenas for a President’s personal information implicate separation‑of‑powers concerns and require a more searching analysis of legislative purpose and need. Lower courts and legal authorities have applied Mazars’ framework to disputes over presidential personal information and have left open how it applies to former presidents and to non‑financial personal data, such as medical records [1]. The CRS and legal commentators say Mazars does not categorically bar such subpoenas but requires a heightened showing of necessity if a dispute reaches court [1].
4. Recent practice and litigation in the Biden context
After public debate performances in 2024, House Republicans sought testimony from White House aides and the White House physician about Biden’s fitness; Chairman Comer warned he would subpoena the physician and aides if they did not cooperate, and later committees issued depositions and subpoenas tied to medical visits outside the White House [2] [5]. When challenged, physicians have asserted physician‑patient confidentiality and, in one reported deposition, the physician declined to answer on advice of counsel by invoking both the Fifth Amendment and physician‑patient privilege [3].
5. How courts have ruled in related disputes
Existing case law shows mixed outcomes: some courts have treated statutory physician‑patient confidentiality as narrowly tailored to civil or criminal proceedings and have held that a congressional subpoena—issued under Congress’s investigative power—is different from those proceedings, potentially making state confidentiality statutes inapplicable to committee investigations [3]. Other decisions and circuit rulings recognize a qualified constitutional informational‑privacy interest in medical records, meaning privacy can protect records in some circumstances but is not absolute and must be balanced against congressional need [1].
6. Practical limits and enforcement tools
Even when Congress issues a subpoena, practical limits persist: custodians can seek protective orders, invoke statutory exceptions, or refuse and force enforcement litigation; Congress can cite contempt but obtaining records often requires court orders to overcome legal privileges and administrative limits [7] [6]. Legal analysts emphasize that statutory exceptions—like a provision allowing disclosure “to either House of Congress” under the Privacy Act—exist, but producers frequently litigate scope, breadth, and redaction before materials are released [7].
7. Competing viewpoints and political subtext
Supporters of subpoenas argue transparency about a sitting president’s fitness is a legitimate oversight function; critics warn that compelled disclosure would set a partisan precedent and could be abused politically, invoking concerns about privacy and separation of powers [8] [7]. Congressional Republicans framed their 2024–25 demands as oversight about a president’s capacity [5]; press accounts and legal summaries document both the political motive for scrutiny and the legal friction that ensues [2] [1].
Limitations: available sources document the legal principles, committee actions, and specific depositions through mid‑2025 and discuss how courts treat these disputes, but they do not provide final Supreme Court rulings resolving a congressional subpoena for a sitting president’s medical records outright—numerous disputes remain fact‑specific and litigated in lower forums [1] [3].