- DOJ invokes executive privilege to block testimony on Mel Gibson firearm rights review
- Armed marshals attempted late-night document delivery to ex-pardon attorney’s home
- House hearing reveals multiple whistleblower accounts of political interference
- Legal experts warn of dangerous precedent for checks and balances
The Justice Department has ignited a constitutional firestorm by attempting to prevent former pardon attorney Liz Oyer from testifying about her controversial termination. This extraordinary move comes amid revelations that deputy U.S. marshals were dispatched to Oyer’s residence to deliver restrictions on her congressional testimony regarding a high-profile gun rights restoration case involving actor Mel Gibson.
Monday’s joint House-Senate hearing marked the first public accounting of political pressures within the Trump administration’s Justice Department. Former public corruption prosecutor Rachel Johnson joined Oyer in detailing patterns of improper influence, including her resignation protest over the dropped case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Legal scholars suggest these testimonies expose systemic erosion of prosecutorial independence.
The executive privilege claims center on Oyer’s alleged refusal to recommend restoring Gibson’s firearm privileges following his 2011 domestic violence conviction. Constitutional law professor Emily Nussbaum notes: We’re seeing executive privilege weaponized in ways that directly contradict its original intent. This isn’t about protecting national security - it’s about shielding questionable political favors.
Regional comparisons highlight similar patterns in state governments. A 2022 California case saw Governor Newsom’s administration unsuccessfully attempt to block testimony about parole recommendations through dubious privilege claims. Unlike the federal response, Sacramento Superior Court immediately invalidated the maneuver as transparent obstruction.
Industry analysts identify three critical implications: First, 43% of federal whistleblower cases now involve privilege claims compared to 17% in 2016. Second, the Marshals Service’s role in executive branch disputes has tripled since 2020. Third, 68% of constitutional law professors surveyed consider current privilege interpretations dangerously expansive.
As congressional leaders prepare bipartisan legislation to clarify executive privilege boundaries, the incident raises urgent questions about accountability mechanisms. Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara warned: When law enforcement becomes an instrument of intimidation rather than justice, our democracy’s foundations crumble.The coming weeks will test whether separation of powers can withstand this unprecedented challenge.