Amy Howe

Oct 21 2022

Graham asks justices to block subpoena in election-interference probe

Update (Oct. 24, 12:45 p.m.): This post has been updated to reflect developments over the weekend and on Monday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, asked the Supreme Court on Friday to block a Georgia grand jury from questioning him about phone calls after the 2020 election to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis wants to ask Graham about the calls, in which he allegedly discussed the state’s absentee-ballot process and allegations of voter fraud, as part of her investigation into possible election interference by former President Donald Trump and his allies.

Democrat Joe Biden won Georgia by a narrow margin in 2020. In a January 2021 conversation with Raffensperger, Trump claimed that voter fraud was rampant in the state and suggested that he had won by a half-million votes. Trump urged Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to give him a victory in Georgia.

After Willis’ office issued a subpoena for Graham’s testimony in August, Graham transferred the dispute over efforts to obtain his testimony to federal court. He argued that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which shields members of Congress from facing questions about their “speech or debate,” protects him from having to testify.

A federal district court in Georgia ruled that Graham could not be questioned about portions of the calls in which he was asking questions related to the certification of the 2020 election. But he could be questioned about other topics, such as his purpose in raising the issues and his communications with the Trump campaign. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit declined to block Graham’s testimony, Graham came to the Supreme Court.

Represented by Don McGahn, who served as White House counsel to Trump, Graham contended that under the speech or debate clause, he cannot be questioned about his calls to Raffensperger and his staff, because the calls were part of his work as a senator – for example, the upcoming vote on whether to certify the 2020 election and his role as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which considers issues relating to elections. If his testimony is not put on hold, Graham argued, he will have no remedy for the constitutional violation that he will suffer: requiring him to testify despite the speech or debate clause.

Graham’s request went initially to Justice Clarence Thomas, who fields emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit. On Saturday, Thomas directed Willis’ office to file a response to Graham’s request by 5 p.m. EDT on Thursday, Oct. 27. On Monday morning, Thomas issued an order known as an “administrative stay”: He temporarily put on hold the lower-court order requiring Graham to testify to give the court time to consider and rule on Graham’s appeal — presumably sometime after Thursday evening.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies