NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Senator Marsha Blackburn didn’t show up to watch Jack Smith testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. She was in Knoxville, celebrating a nuclear reactor permit. But the next day, she made her feelings known in the most direct way possible: she sued him.
Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican now running for governor, filed a federal lawsuit against Smith and the Justice Department on Wednesday, alleging the former special counsel violated her constitutional rights by secretly obtaining her phone records during his investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The lawsuit isn’t about money. Blackburn is asking for exactly one dollar in damages. It’s about something bigger: whether a special counsel can quietly reach into a sitting senator’s phone records without telling anyone, and whether Smith had any legal authority to do it in the first place.
The Subpoena That Nobody Was Supposed to Know About
The story begins in 2022, when then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to take over the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election. As part of that probe, Smith’s team sought phone “toll records” from Verizon and AT&T, information showing who called whom, when, and for how long.
Smith wanted records for 16 Republican members of Congress. AT&T refused. Verizon complied.
Blackburn’s name was on the list.
What makes the case explosive, according to Blackburn’s complaint, is what Smith allegedly didn’t tell the judge. When his team sought a nondisclosure order to prevent Verizon from alerting Blackburn, they reportedly concealed the fact that the subpoena targeted a sitting senator. Judge James Boasberg signed off without knowing a member of Congress was in the crosshairs.
“By seeking the toll records without alerting the cell phone provider or the NDO-issuing court to the identity of the individual whose toll records were targeted, Defendant Smith deprived Senator Blackburn of her right to assert her privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause,” the lawsuit states.
Why the Speech or Debate Clause Matters
The Speech or Debate Clause is one of the Constitution’s most misunderstood protections. It shields members of Congress from being questioned or prosecuted for “any Speech or Debate in either House,” a provision designed to keep the legislative branch free from executive intimidation.
Blackburn argues the clause extends to her phone records, and that Smith’s secret subpoena prevented her from invoking it. By the time she learned what had happened, the records were already in Smith’s hands.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, also argues Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional from the start. Smith was never nominated by President Biden nor confirmed by the Senate, and he wasn’t serving as a U.S. Attorney when he took the job.
“Even if Jack Smith had conducted a perfect investigation and had not violated all those constitutional and statutory rights, the entire investigation was unlawful anyway because he was acting as a private citizen,” Caitlin Moyna of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents Blackburn, said at a press conference.
Jack Smith’s Defense: ‘Our Concern Was President Trump’
Smith has rejected the characterization that he was targeting lawmakers for political reasons.
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 29, Smith said his team was investigating Trump, not Congress. “Our concern was President Trump,” he told senators.
Smith also said he complied with the law and the Speech or Debate Clause, and that the nondisclosure orders were necessary because Trump had a documented history of interfering with investigations, including threatening witnesses like retired Gen. Mark Milley.
Blackburn’s lawsuit came the day after Smith’s testimony. She wasn’t in the room for it. Instead, she attended an event in Knoxville celebrating a reactor construction permit for the Clinch River Nuclear Site. Late that afternoon, an official Senate account linked to Blackburn posted a simple message: “Jack Smith should be disbarred.”
The Broader Pattern: 44 Lawmakers, 4,782 Donors
Blackburn’s case is part of a much larger fight over the scope of Smith’s investigation, which Republicans have dubbed “Arctic Frost.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley revealed in July 2026 that Smith’s team had obtained and reviewed text messages involving 44 current and former members of Congress, not just phone logs, but actual content. Grassley accused Smith of bypassing an internal filter team meant to screen out privileged materials.
Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri went further during a confirmation hearing for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming Smith had testified under oath that he only obtained phone logs. “We know that’s not true,” Schmitt said. “Now, Jack Smith should be subject to prosecution for lying to Congress.”
The lawsuit also alleges Smith’s probe subpoenaed records tied to approximately 4,782 Trump donors, including 102 Tennesseans. Those records reportedly included home addresses, bank account numbers, and signatures.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana pressed Blanche on whether Smith had read his emails. Blanche said the Justice Department was investigating and would check. “There are checks in place that should make it extraordinarily difficult for a prosecutor to collect and review a senator’s emails,” Blanche said.
A Political Fight With Legal Stakes
Blackburn’s lawsuit is as much a political statement as a legal filing. She’s running for Tennessee governor, and her campaign has leaned heavily into her role as a Trump ally targeted by what she calls a weaponized Justice Department.
The timing is notable. Blackburn voted for a government funding bill last year that included a provision allowing senators whose records were subpoenaed to sue the government for up to $500,000 in damages. That provision sparked an ethics complaint alleging she was voting for a potential personal windfall. Congress later repealed the payout option, but the right to sue remained.
Blackburn has consistently said she wouldn’t seek financial damages. Her lawsuit seeking one dollar is her way of proving it.
“This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation’s justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people,” she said in a statement.
What Happens Next
The case now sits in a Tennessee federal court, where Blackburn’s attorneys argue it belongs because Smith reached into the state to obtain a Tennessee senator’s records using a Tennessee phone.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare Smith’s appointment unlawful, declare the records seizure a violation of Blackburn’s civil rights, order Smith to destroy any legislative materials in his possession, and direct the Justice Department to return or redact her toll records.
Whether the case survives initial legal challenges is an open question. Courts have generally interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause more narrowly than lawmakers would like. Last year, the Third Circuit ruled that a Democratic congresswoman couldn’t use the clause to dismiss charges stemming from a confrontation with Homeland Security agents.
But Blackburn’s case isn’t just about one senator’s phone records. It’s a test of whether the executive branch can quietly investigate the legislative branch, and whether the lawyers doing that investigating have to tell anyone what they’re doing.
For Blackburn, the answer is clear. For a federal judge in Nashville, it’s now a question to decide.
Leave a Reply