Marsha Blackburn Sues Jack Smith Over Phone Records

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn has filed a federal lawsuit against former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith and the U.S. Department of Justice, challenging the government’s seizure of her Verizon phone records during the investigation known as Arctic Frost.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, argues that Smith was not lawfully appointed as special counsel and that the collection of Blackburn’s phone records violated her constitutional and civil rights.

Blackburn is seeking only $1 in nominal damages, along with attorney fees and court costs. Her complaint also asks the court to order the Justice Department to return or destroy records connected to her legislative work that remain in government custody.

The case comes at a politically significant moment. Blackburn is the Republican nominee for governor of Tennessee, while Smith has faced renewed scrutiny from Republican lawmakers over the methods used during his investigations involving former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit was filed one day after Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republican senators questioned him about the Arctic Frost investigation and the collection of information involving lawmakers, donors and others.

What Is the Marsha Blackburn Lawsuit About?

At the center of Blackburn’s lawsuit is the government’s acquisition of her cell phone toll records.

According to the complaint filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Smith and others working with the Justice Department, FBI and special counsel’s office obtained records showing whom Blackburn communicated with, when the calls occurred and how long they lasted.

The lawsuit argues that those records were obtained improperly because Blackburn was a sitting member of Congress.

Her attorneys contend that the records could implicate protections provided to members of Congress under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which provides protections related to legislative activity.

The NCLA also alleges that Smith’s office obtained a nondisclosure order requiring Verizon to keep the subpoena secret from Blackburn. According to the organization’s filing, Blackburn did not learn that her records had been subpoenaed until October 2025.

Those allegations are now part of a federal lawsuit and have not been resolved by the court.

Blackburn Challenges Jack Smith’s Appointment

The lawsuit is not limited to the phone records.

Blackburn is also challenging the legal authority under which Smith served as special counsel.

Her attorneys argue that Smith’s November 2022 appointment by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.

The NCLA’s complaint says Smith was not nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate and argues that no statute authorized his appointment in the manner used by the Justice Department.

The organization is asking the court to declare the appointment unlawful.

This is an important part of the case because Blackburn’s complaint connects the question of Smith’s appointment to the authority he exercised while investigating matters related to the 2020 election and Jan. 6.

The court will ultimately have to consider the legal arguments made by the parties rather than the allegations alone.

What Was Arctic Frost?

Arctic Frost was an investigation associated with Smith’s special counsel operation and the broader federal investigation into efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The investigation has become the subject of intense political and legal scrutiny because of information collected from Republican lawmakers, donors and organizations.

During Smith’s Sept. 29 Senate Judiciary Committee appearance, Republican lawmakers questioned him about the investigation and the collection of records involving members of Congress and other individuals. Reuters reported that Republicans accused Smith of abusing his authority, while Smith defended the conduct of his investigations and said they followed Justice Department policies.

The disagreement over Arctic Frost is therefore broader than Blackburn’s individual lawsuit.

It involves questions about how federal investigators handled information involving elected officials and whether constitutional protections were properly considered.

What Does Blackburn Say Happened to Her Records?

Blackburn’s lawsuit says the subpoena for her records was issued on May 25, 2023.

According to the NCLA complaint, the subpoena sought her cell phone toll records and was accompanied by a nondisclosure order.

The complaint argues that the secrecy prevented Blackburn from learning about the subpoena and challenging it at the time.

Her attorneys further allege that Justice Department officials were aware of legal precedent concerning congressional protections but proceeded with the subpoena.

The NCLA says internal records show that the department’s Public Integrity Section identified precedent concerning the Speech or Debate Clause and still determined that the litigation risk was limited.

Those assertions are part of Blackburn’s legal case and will be subject to the court’s review.

Blackburn Wants Records Destroyed

One of the remedies sought by Blackburn is an order requiring the Justice Department to return or destroy records obtained through the investigation.

Her attorneys are specifically asking for the destruction of copies of Blackburn’s legislative materials and notes that may remain in government possession.

The lawsuit also asks for a declaration that the collection of her records violated several legal protections, including the Speech or Debate Clause, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The complaint seeks just $1 in nominal damages.

That means the lawsuit is not primarily about recovering a large financial award. Instead, the requested remedy is designed around legal declarations and the treatment of the records, along with attorney fees and court costs.

Why the Lawsuit Came After Smith’s Senate Testimony

The timing of the lawsuit is notable.

Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 29, one day before Blackburn’s complaint was filed.

During the hearing, Republican senators pressed Smith about the Arctic Frost investigation and the methods used to obtain information from Republican lawmakers and others.

Reuters reported that Smith defended his investigations and said they were conducted according to Justice Department policy. He also said he would not be silenced by threats of prosecution connected to his work.

Blackburn sits on the Judiciary Committee but did not question Smith during the hearing, according to reporting.

The lawsuit therefore moved the dispute from congressional questioning into federal court almost immediately after Smith’s appearance.

Other Lawmakers Were Also Affected

Blackburn was not the only member of Congress whose records became part of the controversy.

The NCLA says Smith’s office subpoenaed records involving at least 20 members of Congress, all Republicans, as well as roughly 400 Republican individuals and organizations.

Separate reporting has also described the seizure of records from Republican senators.

The issue has become particularly contentious because members of Congress have constitutional protections related to legislative activity, and lawmakers from both parties have debated the limits of those protections in investigations.

The scope of the records obtained during Arctic Frost has consequently become an important part of the broader dispute.

What About the Donor Records?

During the Sept. 29 Senate hearing, Republican senators also presented evidence concerning information collected from people who donated to Donald Trump’s political campaign.

According to the reporting supplied for this story, investigators under Smith’s authority subpoenaed home addresses, bank account numbers and signatures belonging to 4,782 people who donated to Trump.

The group reportedly included more than 100 Tennessee residents and several sitting members of Congress.

Those claims were raised during the Senate hearing and are now part of the broader debate surrounding the Arctic Frost investigation.

They should be distinguished from the specific allegations in Blackburn’s lawsuit, which focuses on her own phone records and the legal authority used to obtain them.

Blackburn Previously Had a Legislative Route to Sue

The lawsuit also follows congressional action concerning the senators whose records were subpoenaed.

Last year, Blackburn voted for legislation that ended a federal government shutdown and included a provision allowing six senators whose records were subpoenaed during the Arctic Frost investigation to sue the federal government and seek financial damages.

Congress later removed the ability for senators to pursue those financial payments, while leaving the ability to bring lawsuits.

Blackburn’s current complaint seeks $1 in nominal damages rather than a multimillion-dollar award.

The legal strategy therefore focuses on establishing whether her rights were violated and whether the government’s conduct was lawful.

Jack Smith Has Defended His Investigations

Smith has not agreed with the characterization that his investigations were politically motivated.

During his Sept. 29 Senate appearance, he defended the work of his team and said his investigations followed Justice Department policy.

Republican lawmakers at the hearing argued that Smith’s operation had overstepped its authority and improperly targeted Trump and Republican allies.

Democratic senators defended Smith and argued that the criticism of his investigations was politically motivated.

Those competing arguments are now part of the public record surrounding the dispute, but the Blackburn lawsuit itself will be decided through the federal court process.

What Blackburn Is Asking the Court to Decide

The lawsuit asks the federal court to address several questions.

First, Blackburn wants the court to determine whether Smith’s appointment as special counsel was lawful.

Second, she wants a ruling on whether the seizure of her phone records violated her constitutional and civil rights.

Third, she wants the court to order the Justice Department to return or destroy records that should not have been retained.

Finally, she is asking for $1 in nominal damages, along with attorney fees and court costs.

The case does not establish that Blackburn’s allegations are correct simply because the complaint has been filed.

Those claims will have to be considered through the judicial process.

What Happens Next?

The next phase of the case will involve the federal court reviewing the claims and the government’s response.

Blackburn’s attorneys will have to establish the legal basis for their challenges, including their arguments concerning Smith’s appointment and the constitutional protections they say applied to the phone records.

The Justice Department and other defendants will have an opportunity to respond to those claims.

The court could ultimately address questions about the scope of a special counsel’s authority, congressional protections and the government’s ability to obtain records connected to members of Congress.

Because the lawsuit was only filed on Sept. 30, there has not yet been a final judicial ruling on the allegations.

Marsha Blackburn and Jack Smith Dispute Moves to Court

The lawsuit between Marsha Blackburn and Jack Smith represents a new stage in the continuing controversy over the Arctic Frost investigation.

Blackburn says her Verizon records were obtained unlawfully and that Smith did not have legitimate authority to act as special counsel.

Her attorneys are asking for declarations concerning Smith’s appointment and the alleged constitutional violations, as well as the destruction of records and $1 in nominal damages.

Smith, meanwhile, has defended the broader investigations he led and has said his work followed Justice Department policy.

The dispute now moves beyond congressional hearings and public statements and into federal court.

The ultimate outcome will depend on the legal arguments, evidence and rulings that emerge as the case proceeds.

For now, the central questions are whether Smith’s appointment was lawful, whether the government properly obtained Blackburn’s phone records and what constitutional protections applied to the investigation.

Those questions remain unresolved as the lawsuit begins its path through the federal court system.