Graham Blocks Bill to Repeal Shutdown Deal Lawsuit Provision
WASHINGTON – Senator Lindsey Graham on Wednesday blocked a bill passed by the House aimed at repealing a provision within a recent shutdown deal that would allow senators to sue over restrictions to thier official duties, potentially collecting damages up to $500,000. GrahamS objection, made under the Senate’s unanimous consent rules, halts the bill’s progress, highlighting deep divisions over the controversial measure.
The provision, initially included to prevent future disruptions like those experienced during government shutdowns, has drawn criticism for potentially enabling personal financial gain for senators.While proponents argue it safeguards the Senate’s ability to function,opponents contend it creates an possibility for frivolous lawsuits and misuse of funds. The impasse leaves the provision intact, meaning senators retain the right to sue should thay perceive their duties hindered, with any awarded damages currently slated to go to the individual senator.
During a press conference following the blocked vote, Graham questioned the legality of the original subpoena that led to the provision’s inclusion, stating, “What did I do wrong? What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman?” He deferred to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, asking if the measure had been properly vetted with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, relevant committees, and the Ethics Committee.Thune confirmed it had been.
Graham framed the situation as a bipartisan effort to prevent future overreach, saying, “So this wasn’t Republicans doing this. This was people in the Senate believing what happened to the Senate need never happen again.”
Following Graham’s objection, Thune proposed an amendment to redirect any potential damages awarded under the law to the United States Treasury, stating, “This measure is about accountability and not profit.” though, Senator Martin Heinrich objected to this amendment, arguing for a collaborative approach with the House to address the broader issue of protecting members without the “outrageous damage provisions” retroactively added to the statute.
