A federal appeals court on Sunday temporarily blocked a district court order compelling Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) to testify before a Georgia grand jury investigating former president Donald Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court, instructing the judge to decide whether Graham should be exempt from answering certain kinds of questions because he is a federal lawmaker. The Constitution’s speech and debate clause states that for “any Speech or Debate in either House” lawmakers “shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The appeals court said a federal district could must determine whether the South Carolina Republican is “entitled to a partial quashal or modification of the subpoena to appear before the special purpose grand jury” under the speech and debate clause. The appeals court said it will then take up the case for further consideration.
Graham had been set to testify on Tuesday before the special grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., after U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May ordered the senator to testify last week.
Graham has been fighting the subpoena for months, arguing that he played no role in efforts to interfere in the election and that the order infringes on constitutional protections for members of Congress.
Prosecutors want to question Graham about two alleged phone calls he made to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in November 2020 as the election unfolded. During the calls, Graham allegedly asked Raffensperger to begin by “reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump.”
However, Graham has said he had no involvement in the former president’s alleged efforts to “find” votes to bring Trump — who believed votes had been mistakenly counted for Biden — a win in Georgia.
“Senator Graham did not inject himself into Georgia’s electoral process, and never tried to alter the outcome of any election. The conversation was about absentee ballots and Georgia’s procedures,” a motion to fight the subpoena reads.