Jack Smith and Marsha Blackburn’s phone-records lawsuit: what the fight is about

Former special counsel Jack Smith faces a new legal challenge after Senator Marsha Blackburn sued him on September 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee over the collection of her phone records. The lawsuit takes a dispute aired at his Senate hearing into court, where Blackburn is challenging how investigators obtained a lawmaker’s records.

One striking detail: Blackburn’s office says she is seeking one dollar in nominal damages, alongside other remedies. The records at issue show whom she called, when and for how long. That description does not establish that investigators recorded or listened to her conversations.

What changed after Jack Smith’s Senate hearing

The new development since NewsJaws’ earlier coverage of Smith’s Senate appearance is Blackburn’s civil lawsuit. Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 29; Blackburn announced her case the following day. Her challenge concerns investigative conduct, rather than a new prosecution of Donald Trump.

The hearing also produced a separate exchange reported by the Associated Press: Republican Senator Eric Schmitt questioned Smith about an Atlanta Hawks basketball game. Smith explained that he had attended an Iowa Hawkeyes women’s game at Maryland. That exchange and the subsequent lawsuit are distinct parts of the attention around his appearance.

Phone records are different from recorded conversations

Roll Call reports that Smith described two separate categories of material at the hearing. Alongside telephone toll records, investigators obtained National Archives records containing messages between members of Congress and the Trump administration. Those archived messages were different evidence from the call metadata at the centre of Blackburn’s complaint.

What Marsha Blackburn alleges

Blackburn argues that secrecy surrounding the subpoena prevented her from asserting protections under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. The clause protects legislative activity. Whether it barred the collection of these records is part of the dispute, rather than something established by Blackburn’s filing.

According to Roll Call’s account of the complaint, Verizon supplied Blackburn’s records. The complaint says AT&T raised concerns about congressional privilege when it received a subpoena, and Smith’s team then abandoned that request. Blackburn alleges investigators withheld lawmakers’ identities in a way that prevented the judge from considering those protections.

She also challenges Smith’s constitutional appointment and alleges violations of free-speech and search protections. In her announcement, Blackburn said: “This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable”. Those are her allegations and stated purpose; the filing itself is not a court finding that Smith acted unlawfully.

What Jack Smith said about the subpoenas

Smith defended the collection at the preceding hearing. Roll Call reports that he said he complied with the law and congressional protections, and that secrecy orders were necessary to protect the investigation. That testimony came before Blackburn announced her lawsuit; it was not a response to the filed complaint.

AP reports that the subpoenas concerned Republican lawmakers contacted by Trump or his aides on January 6, 2021. Smith said the records helped establish the “scope of the conspiracy” and corroborated efforts to delay certification of the election. That explanation describes his investigative rationale, not a judicial conclusion about the subpoenas’ legality.

In his prepared testimony, Smith said his office followed Justice Department policies and legal requirements, making decisions on evidence and law rather than Trump’s politics or candidacy. “I believe that there is no role for politics in the proper administration of justice,” he wrote.

Senate Judiciary ranking Democrat Dick Durbin also defended Smith in his opening statement: “There was nothing untoward about Special Counsel Smith and his fellow prosecutors conducting this investigation.” Durbin’s statement expressed his assessment of the investigation; it did not settle Blackburn’s legal claims.

What Blackburn wants the court to decide

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents Blackburn, lists Smith in his personal capacity and the Justice Department as defendants and identifies the case as active. Beyond nominal damages, Blackburn seeks a declaration that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Roll Call reports that she also wants the collected records returned or destroyed.

The underlying Trump prosecutions did not produce trial verdicts establishing Smith’s allegations. Durbin’s account says Smith moved to dismiss the cases after Trump’s November 2024 reelection because Justice Department policy bars federal prosecution of a sitting president. Smith continued to defend his charging decisions in his September 29 testimony.

NCLA’s case page establishes the commencement of Blackburn’s challenge, not a decision granting her requested remedies. The cited reporting establishes no hearing schedule or response deadline, and no specific response from Smith or the Justice Department to the filed complaint. For now, the confirmed development is the lawsuit and the competing positions that preceded it.