Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has filed a federal lawsuit against former special counsel Jack Smith, accusing his investigation into Donald Trump and the 2020 election of unlawfully obtaining her congressional phone records.
The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 30, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, one day after Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a lengthy hearing about his investigations into Trump. Blackburn, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was present for the hearing but did not question Smith.
Blackburn’s complaint centers on phone toll records obtained during the investigation known as Arctic Frost. Toll records generally show information such as which numbers were contacted and the duration of calls, rather than the actual content of conversations.
The senator argues that the records were obtained in violation of protections afforded to members of Congress. Her lawsuit also challenges Smith’s appointment as special counsel and alleges violations involving the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment.
Smith, meanwhile, defended his conduct during Tuesday’s Senate hearing, saying that he complied with the law and the constitutional Speech or Debate Clause. He also argued that nondisclosure orders surrounding the records were necessary to protect the investigation.
The case now brings a dispute that had largely played out in congressional hearings into federal court, where the legal questions surrounding lawmakers’ records and the scope of special counsel authority will be examined.
Why Marsha Blackburn Is Suing Jack Smith
Blackburn’s lawsuit focuses on records that Smith’s team obtained while investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
According to the complaint, Smith’s team obtained Blackburn’s phone records from Verizon. The lawsuit says prosecutors also issued a subpoena to AT&T, but the company raised concerns about the Speech or Debate Clause. Rather than pursue the AT&T subpoena further, the complaint says, Smith’s team abandoned it.
Blackburn argues that prosecutors should have disclosed that the records belonged to a member of Congress. Her complaint says that the process prevented her from having an opportunity to assert congressional privileges before the records were obtained.
A major part of her argument is tied to a nondisclosure order. According to the lawsuit, Smith’s team obtained an order preventing the telecommunications providers from notifying the people whose records were being sought.
Blackburn says that restriction was especially significant because she was a sitting senator and therefore had constitutional protections that could have been raised if she had known about the subpoena.
The lawsuit asks the court to address whether those protections applied to the records and whether the way prosecutors obtained them was constitutional.
What Were the Phone Records?
The records at the center of the dispute were not described as recordings of conversations.
Smith told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his investigation obtained two categories of records involving lawmakers. One category consisted of toll records, which contain information about calls, including the phone numbers involved and the length of calls.
The second category involved records from the National Archives and Records Administration. Those materials included messages involving members of Congress and the Trump administration.
The distinction is important because the lawsuit concerns the acquisition of Blackburn’s phone records, while the wider congressional controversy involves several types of communications and records.
Blackburn’s complaint argues that the government should have treated congressional records differently because of the constitutional protections provided to legislators.
The legal question is not simply whether investigators can ever obtain a lawmaker’s records. Instead, the case raises questions about when congressional privileges apply and what procedures prosecutors must follow when an investigation reaches a member of Congress.
What Is the Speech or Debate Clause?
The Speech or Debate Clause is part of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
It provides protections to members of Congress for certain legislative activities. The purpose is generally understood as protecting the legislative branch from improper interference by the executive or judicial branches.
Blackburn’s lawsuit argues that the protection extends to the phone records obtained by Smith’s team.
Smith has taken a different position. During the Senate hearing, he said his actions complied with the law and the Speech or Debate Clause.
The boundaries of the clause have been the subject of several court cases involving members of Congress in recent years. Courts have not treated the privilege as covering every activity or communication involving a lawmaker.
That history could become important as Blackburn’s lawsuit moves forward.
Other Lawmakers Have Faced Similar Legal Questions
Blackburn’s case comes after several high-profile disputes over the scope of congressional privilege.
In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered the seizure of Rep. Scott Perry’s phone as part of the Jan. 6 investigation. The court allowed a limited search and held that some of Perry’s communications relating to the 2020 election were outside the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.
Another case involved the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
In 2022, courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that Graham had to respond to a subpoena seeking testimony about his actions surrounding the certification of the 2020 election results. The dispute also involved questions about the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause.
More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey could not use the clause to dismiss criminal charges stemming from a confrontation with federal immigration officials.
These cases do not automatically determine the outcome of Blackburn’s lawsuit. But they show why the boundaries of congressional privilege are likely to be an important part of the court’s analysis.
Jack Smith Defended His Investigation
Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 29, 2026, to answer questions about his investigations of Trump.
Republican senators questioned him extensively about his handling of the investigations, including the collection of lawmakers’ phone records.
Smith defended the work of his investigative team and rejected allegations that he acted because of political bias. He said the records involving lawmakers were connected to the investigation and that investigators had legitimate reasons for seeking them.
Smith also explained why nondisclosure orders were used.
He said the restrictions were intended to protect the investigation from interference. During the hearing, he pointed to what he described as examples of efforts to interfere with investigations, including threats involving witnesses.
The hearing did not resolve the legal dispute. Instead, Blackburn’s lawsuit has now moved the controversy from congressional questioning to a federal courtroom.
What Was the Arctic Frost Investigation?
Arctic Frost was connected to the broader federal investigation into efforts surrounding the 2020 presidential election.
After Trump announced his campaign for another presidential term in November 2022, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel. Smith took over existing grand jury investigations involving Trump.
One case focused on alleged efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss. Prosecutors accused Trump of participating in efforts involving state election results, alternate electors and the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Smith’s other major federal case involved allegations concerning classified documents.
Both cases were eventually dismissed after Trump won the 2024 presidential election. Smith’s office cited Justice Department policy regarding the federal prosecution of a sitting president when dismissing the election case.
The phone-record dispute involving Blackburn is connected to the election investigation rather than being a separate investigation into the senator.
Blackburn Says Her Political Activities Were Targeted
Blackburn’s complaint alleges that Smith targeted her because of her political activities.
In announcing the lawsuit, Blackburn accused Smith of abusing government authority and described the investigation as an attack on conservatives.
Those statements represent Blackburn’s allegations and characterization of the investigation. Smith has denied political bias and defended the investigative decisions made by his team.
The court will have to consider the evidence and legal arguments presented by both sides.
The lawsuit also raises a First Amendment issue. Blackburn alleges that her rights were violated because she was targeted in connection with her political activities and communications.
That claim is separate from her Speech or Debate Clause argument and from her Fourth Amendment challenge to the search for her records.
Blackburn Challenges Smith’s Appointment
The phone records are not the only issue in Blackburn’s lawsuit.
She is also asking the court to declare that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.
Smith was appointed by then-Attorney General Garland in November 2022. His appointment and authority have previously been challenged in federal court.
The question involves the legal authority of the attorney general to appoint a special counsel and the status of that position under federal law.
Blackburn’s lawsuit therefore has two distinct elements. One concerns the specific handling of her phone records, while the other challenges the legal foundation of Smith’s appointment.
The court could ultimately have to consider both questions separately.
What Blackburn Wants From the Court
Blackburn’s complaint seeks several forms of relief.
Among them is a declaration that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. She also wants the records obtained during the investigation returned or destroyed.
The lawsuit additionally seeks nominal damages of $1 from Smith, according to reporting on the filing.
The requested relief means the lawsuit is not primarily about recovering a large financial award. Instead, the legal declarations and treatment of the records are central to the case.
Blackburn’s complaint also asks the court to address the constitutional protections she says were denied to her.
Why the Nondisclosure Order Matters
One of the more unusual elements of the dispute involves the nondisclosure order.
When investigators obtain records from a telecommunications company, the provider can normally have obligations concerning notice, depending on the circumstances and applicable law. In this case, Smith’s team obtained an order preventing the providers from notifying the affected lawmakers.
Blackburn argues that the order interfered with her ability to assert congressional privilege.
The complaint also points to a federal law that, according to Blackburn, restricts the government from preventing communications companies from notifying lawmakers when congressional records are obtained.
Whether that statute applies in the circumstances described by the lawsuit will be another issue for the court to consider.
The Lawsuit Comes After a Heated Senate Hearing
The timing of Blackburn’s lawsuit is notable.
Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Sept. 29. The hearing lasted for hours and featured sharp exchanges between Smith and Republican senators.
The lawmakers questioned him about the Trump investigations, the treatment of Republican figures and the acquisition of phone records.
Blackburn is a member of the Judiciary Committee but did not personally question Smith during the hearing. One day later, she filed the federal complaint.
The lawsuit now gives Blackburn a separate legal forum to challenge the actions she says violated her constitutional rights.
The Senate Had Also Considered a Financial Remedy
The controversy over lawmakers’ records previously spilled into congressional legislation.
The Senate added a provision to a spending bill in 2025 that would have allowed senators to seek $500,000 from the government if their phone or other records were searched.
Legal experts questioned the unusual provision, and it was later removed from a spending bill that passed in February 2026.
Blackburn’s current lawsuit is separate from that legislative proposal.
Her complaint instead relies on constitutional and statutory arguments and seeks judicial relief over the specific records obtained during Smith’s investigation.
What Happens Next in the Blackburn Case?
The lawsuit will now proceed through the federal court system unless the parties reach another resolution.
Smith will have an opportunity to respond to Blackburn’s allegations. The court may then consider motions concerning the claims, the constitutional questions and whether Blackburn is entitled to the remedies she is requesting.
Because the case involves the Speech or Debate Clause, the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment claims and the authority of a special counsel, it could raise broader questions beyond Blackburn’s individual phone records.
For now, however, the allegations in the complaint have not been established as findings by the court.
Blackburn says Smith violated her rights by obtaining her records and preventing her from challenging the collection at the time. Smith has maintained that his team followed the law and that the records were obtained for legitimate investigative purposes.
The federal case will determine how those competing legal arguments apply to the facts surrounding Blackburn’s records.
Bottom Line on Marsha Blackburn’s Lawsuit Against Jack Smith
Marsha Blackburn’s lawsuit against Jack Smith centers on a dispute over how federal investigators obtained a sitting senator’s phone records during the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The Tennessee senator argues that the records were obtained without giving her an opportunity to assert congressional protections and that the nondisclosure order made that problem worse. She is also challenging Smith’s appointment as special counsel and alleging violations of several constitutional rights.
Smith has defended the investigation, saying his team complied with the law and the Speech or Debate Clause. He has also argued that nondisclosure orders were necessary to prevent interference with the investigation.
The case is now before a federal court in Tennessee. Its eventual rulings could add to the growing body of legal decisions concerning the limits of congressional privilege, government access to lawmakers’ records and the authority of federal special counsels.