Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is resisting a subpoena in a civil case claiming the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution bars him from testifying [1]:

[Chambliss campaign spokeswoman Michelle Hitt] Grasso said Senate attorneys have told Chambliss he is immune from submitting to a deposition under the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which shields members of Congress from testifying about legislative business in private lawsuits.

Lawyers would like to ask Sen. Chambliss about his communications with the Imperial Sugar Corporation and why he tried to dissuade plaintiffs from suing the company following a deadly explosion and fire at a Georgia refinery earlier this year.

While the Speech or Debate Clause provides Sen. Chambliss with immunity from questions about legislative activity such as the July hearing at which Imperial Sugar’s vice president for operations testified as well as any preparation for that hearing, the Clause does not protect the senator from having to answer questions about meetings with victims’ families.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated it very clearly:

The Speech or Debate Clause does not give Sen. Chambliss blanket immunity from testifying in a civil case simply because he is a member of Congress. As an attorney, Sen. Chambliss should know this. Clearly, he needs to brush up on his constitutional law.

In no case has the Supreme Court ever held that all conduct merely relating the legislative process is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

In fact, the Supreme Court has held that members of Congress engage in many activities other than those that are purely legislative. Examples include constituent services, communications with other government agencies, assistance in securing government contracts and speeches delivered outside of Congress.