http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/science/are-subpoenas-on-exxon-mobil-inquiries-valid-experts-say-yes-and-no.html 2016-09-14 21:40:36 Are Subpoenas on Exxon Mobil Inquiries Valid? Experts Say Yes, and No A House panel heard conflicting testimony over whether exceptional subpoenas arising from investigations of Exxon Mobil by state attorneys general can be enforced. === A House committee heard conflicting testimony on Wednesday over exceptional subpoenas arising from investigations of Lamar S. Smith, a Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, The state officials are investigating how Exxon Mobil’s decades-long research on Mr. Schneiderman announced in November that he was seeking information from Exxon Mobil about its past statements about climate change and the current status of its research and projections. Since then, Mr. Smith has called the state-level investigations a violation of scientists’ right to free speech. Mr. Smith said he had called Wednesday’s hearing to “affirm the legitimacy” of his inquiry. The attorneys general and the organizations have refused to comply with the subpoenas from Mr. Smith, as they have refused to comply with earlier demands for documents from him, claiming that the federal subpoenas are unconstitutional. The attorneys general have cited case law going back to the proceedings of the House Un-American Activities Committee and have cited principles of states’ rights — an argument usually made by conservatives. Mr. Schneiderman and his supporters say the First Amendment argument is a The subpoenaed organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and 350.org, have also refused to comply. This week, a group of more than a dozen First Amendment scholars and litigators sent a letter to Mr. Smith, arguing that his subpoenas, not those from the state officials, were a threat to the organizations’ First Amendment rights, and that they exceeded the legal authority of the committee. Critics of Mr. Smith, who has questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus underlying climate change, note that he has received more than $675,000 from the fossil fuel industry since 1998, including more than $24,000 from Exxon Mobil. Supporters of Mr. Smith and Exxon Mobil The witnesses called for the hearing included The first witness, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University law school, is not affiliated with conservative groups, and in his prepared comments he stated that he supported action against climate change. He said, however, that the committee “clearly has the ability” to expect compliance with its subpoenas. The justification for the state subpoenas, he testified, is less clear, and he expressed the opinion that they violated free speech. Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former acting general counsel of the House of Representatives, Supporters of Exxon Mobil have characterized the investigation as a threat of criminal prosecution over holding increasingly unpopular scientific opinions, and thus a threat to First Amendment rights. Mr. Schneiderman has “The First Amendment doesn’t protect you for fraud,” he has said.