Senatorial privilege:

U.S. Constitution: Article I: [Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Makes me think that as soon as the Senate ceases its session, the Georgia courts can throw Saxby in jail for contempt and keep him there until the Senate comes back into session, no?

Alice Massini:

Chambliss Refusing to Speak in Imperial Sugar Case: News Three was the first to tell you Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss had been subpoenaed by Savannah Attorney Mark Tate in the case against Imperial Sugar. Tate, who represents families of the deceased, subpoenaed Chambliss because he believes Chambliss has pertinent information for the case. In a News Three follow-up, we've gotten word that Chambliss' lawyer is moving to quash the subpoena. Tate says attorneys for Chambliss claim he has immunity because he's a U.S. Senator. "Our clients have said to reporters that they have felt like he was trying to influence them and dissuade them from filing lawsuits. That's the kind of activity a U.S. Senator does not enjoy privilege to conduct," explains Tate. We were unable to reach Senator Chambliss' Office for comment. We will continue to follow this story and bring you the latest.

Comments

[sash]

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

[sash]

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

[sash]

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

[tWB]

Article I Section 6 immunity from arrest only applies to arrests made in connection with civil suits. It doesn't confer immunity to service of process (see, e.g., Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76 (1934)).

However, I suspect that Chambliss is arguing that his contacts with Imperial Sugar were in the course of Senate business and he is thus protected by the Speech and Debate Clause (see, e.g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972)). However, note that, under Gravel, any communications sought by opposing counsel that were not in direct furtherance of Congressional business could be discoverable. If that's his theory of the case, Chambliss has an argument (and a pretty good one), but it's not bulletproof.