The repudiation by a United States federal judge of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s effort to block a congressional subpoena of one of his former deputies, Mark Pomerantz, suggests that federal courts will be keeping a watchful eye on the prosecution of President Trump. 

“No one is above the law,” Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil — an appointee of Mr. Trump —  wrote in her decision regarding Mr. Bragg, who has used much the same language to defend his charging of the former president. Mr. Pomerantz is scheduled to testify before lawmakers onThursday morning.  

The decision by Judge Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York is a victory for Representative Jim Jordan, who issued the subpoena in his capacity as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Jordan argues that Congress’s investigatory ken encompasses Mr. Bragg’s investigation. 

Mr. Jordan wants to hear from that deputy prosecutor, Mr. Pomerantz, who quit Mr. Bragg’s office this summer over what he saw as his boss’s recalcitrance in charging the former president. Mr. Pomerantz, a longtime attorney, wrote a book, “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” detailing his frustration with Mr. Bragg. 

Judge Vyskocil’s ruling appears to grant Mr. Jordan his wish, though Mr. Pomerantz has filed  an appeal with the riders of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mr. Bragg lambasts the subpoena as a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” his office and an encroachment on state sovereignty.

Judge Vyskocil disagrees, writing, “The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not.” She added that Mr. Bragg is an elected official who “does not operate outside of the political arena.”

The decision, in a moment of candor, acknowledges, “In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights.” The judge adds that Mr. Jordan has “initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution.” She marks that she “does not endorse either side’s agenda.”

During a hearing that preceded the decision, one of Mr. Bragg’s lawyers, Theodore Boutrous Jr.,  noted, “It is totally unprecedented for a congressional committee to go after a local district attorney.” Judge Vyskocil retorted: “It is also unprecedented for a local district attorney to bring an indictment of a former president.”

The judge allowed, “There’s politics going on on both sides here,” but her decision avers that because Mr. Jordan articulated a “legitimate legislative purpose” for issuing the subpoena, she is powerless to stop it: “It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection.” 

Judge Vyskocil has harsh words for Mr. Bragg’s filing with her court, labeling one section of his brief “nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump,” as well as criticizing his use of “largely irrelevant exhibits” and a “hodge-podge of social media postings.” She also mentions the receipt of “unsolicited amicus briefs.” 

Among the “several valid legislative purposes underlying the subpoena” Judge Vyskocil  identifies is the use of federal funds in state prosecutions, as well as the “possibility of legislative reforms to insulate current and former presidents from state prosecutions.”

Judge Vyskocil chastises what she calls Mr. Bragg’s “throw-everything-at-the-wall approach” to combating Mr. Jordan’s subpoena, which she defines as founded on a “seemingly endless string of ‘what ifs.’” She finds Mr. Pomerantz to be a “very experienced, sophisticated, and extremely capable attorney” well versed in the parameters of privilege that will govern his testimony.

The judge scoffs that Mr. Bragg “cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure” and should be judicially protected from Mr. Jordan’s questions. 

While the decision allows that Mr. Bragg should be presumed to be acting in “good faith,” it closes by noting that he “is an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.”