D.D.C.: Challenging standing to object to a GJ subpoena can be waived

Standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena is like Fourth Amendment standing. It’s not jurisdictional, and it can be waived. “The Supreme Court has made clear that Fourth Amendment standing ‘is not a jurisdictional question’ but instead part ‘of the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim.’ Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395, 410-11, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 200 L. Ed. 2d 805 (2018). By the same logic, a challenge to a party’s standing to quash must also be a merits argument. If it is, then it can be waived. ….” The government doesn’t challenge standing for subpoenas for Federal Reserve records. (And they are quashed as pretextual.) In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Nos. [redacted], 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52927 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2026).

Defendant was thought to be the driver of a Ford pickup truck from California in Puerto Rico, but he disavowed responsibility saying he didn’t have the keys. A gun had been seen inside it in plain view. A search of the truck revealed things of his connecting him to it. He doesn’t have standing. There was also a Franks challenge which is decided on the merits: “A statement that Delgado read the motion is not even an allegation that the agent’s affidavit contains a material omission. And, even if the Court considers the facts in the referenced motion, Delgado did not make a substantial preliminary showing of a material omission. He does not include statements from the other witnesses, nor does he include a copy of the affidavit submitted by law enforcement, without which it is difficult if not impossible to assess whether a material omission was made.” United States v. Delgado-López, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52886 (D.P.R. Mar. 12, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Standing, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.