A federal judge on Thursday denied a bid from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify before a Fulton County, Georgia, special grand jury probing former President Trump’s alleged interference into the 2020 election.
Graham has been fending off a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) since July, calling it politically motivated and arguing he cannot be compelled to testify under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which protects lawmakers from lawsuits related to official legislative duties.
U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia declined to quash the subpoena in its entirety — but did bar questioning about Graham’s calls to state election officials as it relates to fact-finding for his own vote on certifying of the 2020 election, which she ruled fell under the Speech and Debate Clause.
“As to the other categories, the Court finds that they are not legislative, and the Speech or Debate Clause does not apply to them,” May wrote. “As such, Senator Graham may be questioned about any alleged efforts to encourage Secretary [of State Brad] Raffensperger or others to throw out ballots or otherwise alter Georgia’s election practices and procedures.”
“Likewise, the grand jury may inquire into Senator Graham’s alleged communications and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia, as well as into Senator Graham’s public statements related to Georgia’s 2020 elections,” the judge continued.
Willis is seeking his testimony on calls Graham made to Raffensperger and other state officials as well as the senator’s communications with Trump’s team after the 2020 election as part of her investigation into Trump’s push to overturn election results in the Georgia county.
May denied Graham’s motion to quash the subpoena in mid-August, but the senator appealed and secured a victory earlier this month when a three-judge appeals court panel sent the case back to the U.S. District Court.
In Thursday’s opinion, May argued that calls between Graham and state election officials are “not manifestly legislative on their face,” noting comments made by Raffensperger saying Graham asked him to throw out some ballots.
While the judge said questioning on Graham’s “investigatory, fact-finding” questions related to the Senate’s certification of the 2020 election could be limited, May said a broad quash was unreasonable.
“The Court does not find that it can simply accept Senator Graham’s sweeping and conclusory characterizations of the calls and ignore other objective facts in the record that call Senator Graham’s characterizations into question,” May wrote.