Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, not a felony. Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, a person who ignores a congressional subpoena or refuses to answer questions during a congressional investigation faces up to twelve months in jail and a fine that can reach $100,000. Because federal law treats any offense carrying one year or less as a misdemeanor, and twelve months is more than six, contempt of Congress sits in the top misdemeanor tier: a Class A misdemeanor.
Why It Counts as a Misdemeanor
Federal law draws the felony-misdemeanor line by maximum prison exposure. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3559, any offense punishable by more than one year in prison is a felony; one year or less is a misdemeanor.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 3559 – Sentencing Classification of Offenses The contempt statute caps imprisonment at twelve months, which keeps it on the misdemeanor side of that line. Within the misdemeanor tiers, anything above six months and up to a year is Class A, the most serious category.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2 USC 192 – Refusal of Witness to Testify or Produce Papers
The classification is not just a label. It controls the maximum fine a judge can impose, the sentencing guidelines that apply, and how the conviction shows up on a criminal record. A Class A misdemeanor is still a federal criminal conviction, and it carries consequences well past the courtroom.
What a Conviction Actually Costs
The statute itself sets a prison term of not less than one month and not more than twelve months. On its face, the text does not allow a judge to impose zero jail time, though the mandatory minimum has drawn occasional legal debate.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2 USC 192 – Refusal of Witness to Testify or Produce Papers
The fine figure is less obvious. The 1857 statute names a $1,000 cap, but because the offense qualifies as a Class A misdemeanor, the general federal sentencing statute pushes the ceiling to $100,000.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3571 – Sentence of Fine The higher number applies because the contempt statute does not exempt itself from the general fine provisions.
A judge can also impose up to one year of supervised release after any prison time. During that period, the defendant reports to a probation officer, stays within the assigned federal judicial district, and follows other conditions the court sets. If a judge imposes probation instead of prison, the probation term can run up to five years depending on the offense level calculated under the federal sentencing guidelines.
How a Charge Becomes a Conviction
A contempt charge does not happen on the day someone defies a subpoena. The committee that issued the subpoena first votes on whether to recommend a contempt citation to the full chamber. If approved, the full House or Senate votes on the citation. Once passed, the statute directs the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House to certify the citation and send it to the U.S. Attorney for the relevant district.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2 USC 194 – Certification of Failure to Testify or Produce; Grand Jury Action
The statute describes it as the U.S. Attorney’s “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. In practice, the Department of Justice retains prosecutorial discretion and decides whether to pursue it. That discretion carries real weight when the target is an executive branch official. A 1984 Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluded that a U.S. Attorney is not required to prosecute an executive branch official who asserts executive privilege at the President’s direction.5United States Department of Justice. Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege That policy has been invoked across administrations to shield officials from prosecution.
If the DOJ does move ahead, it presents evidence to a grand jury, which decides whether probable cause supports an indictment. A contempt citation from Congress is not itself a conviction. The defendant gets a full federal trial, including the right to a jury, the right to counsel, and the presumption of innocence. Only after a conviction does any penalty attach.
Defenses to the Charge
Being held in contempt by Congress does not guarantee a conviction. Several defenses have been recognized or argued.
The Fifth Amendment
A witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions where truthful answers would create a real risk of criminal prosecution. The hazard must be genuine rather than speculative. The privilege applies to congressional hearings the same way it applies in court, and Congress cannot punish a witness for properly invoking it.
Lack of Pertinence
In Watkins v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court held that Congress’s investigative power has limits. A committee must inform a witness how its questions relate to a legitimate legislative purpose, and the committee’s authorizing resolution must be specific enough for the witness to understand the scope of the inquiry. The Court overturned the Watkins conviction because the committee’s charge was so vague the witness had no fair way to know whether he was within his rights to refuse. If a question has no clear connection to something Congress can actually legislate on, refusing to answer it is not contempt.
Executive Privilege
Current and former executive branch officials sometimes argue that disclosing internal White House deliberations would undermine the President’s ability to receive candid advice. The privilege is not absolute. A DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum concluded that it may yield when Congress shows a strong, specific need for the material and cannot carry out its legislative work without it.6Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Whether Congress May Use Inherent Contempt to Punish Executive Branch Officials Who Withhold Subpoenaed Materials Based on a Presidential Assertion of Executive Privilege The defense rarely gets tested in a courtroom, because the DOJ’s longstanding policy is to decline prosecution where the privilege is asserted at the President’s direction.
Willfulness
The statute requires that a person “willfully” default on a subpoena. Prosecutors must prove the refusal was deliberate, not accidental or the product of confusion. How far that requirement reaches is still being litigated. Dissenting judges in a 2025 D.C. Circuit decision argued that “willfully” should mean the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful, consistent with how the Supreme Court has interpreted the term in other criminal statutes. The majority did not adopt that reading, so for now the government does not necessarily have to prove the defendant knew they were breaking the law.
Recent Convictions
Contempt of Congress charges are rare, and convictions rarer. Two cases from the January 6th investigation show how the process plays out when the DOJ does prosecute.
Stephen Bannon, a former White House adviser, refused to appear for a deposition and to produce documents subpoenaed by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol breach. He was convicted on two counts in July 2022 and sentenced to four months in prison and a $6,500 fine.7U.S. Department of Justice. Stephen K. Bannon Sentenced to Four Months in Prison on Two Counts of Contempt of Congress A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the conviction on appeal in 2024.
Peter Navarro, a former White House trade adviser, was convicted on the same charges after similarly refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena. He was sentenced in January 2024 to four months in prison and a $9,500 fine.8U.S. Department of Justice. Ex-White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Sentenced to Four Months in Prison on Two Counts of Contempt of Congress Both sentences fell well short of the twelve-month maximum, but both defendants served real prison time.
Both cases also showed the limits of certain defenses. Each defendant argued that executive privilege shielded him. The courts rejected those claims, in part because neither had received a formal assertion of privilege from the sitting President when the subpoenas were issued. Claiming executive privilege after the fact, without presidential backing, has not held up in court.