Cleveland says low litigation risk did not excuse subpoenaing Blackburn's records

Margot ClevelandNCLA attorney

Cleveland argues that Smith knowingly disregarded legislative privilege because he expected little risk of litigation.

“They were wrong”

Official statement

Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.
The Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., photographed from across a street on a clear day.
Credit: Architect of the Capitol

Where this statement fits

Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?

On September 29, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters," with former special counsel Jack Smith as its only witness. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republicans said that Smith's team, in the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation and its own election case, obtained members of Congress's phone toll records and text messages, used nondisclosure orders to keep members from learning of it, and breached the Speech or Debate Clause. Smith said the toll records were non-content records obtained after he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time. Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political." The sides and the documents give different counts of the members affected. The dispute is whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper.

Read the full case

Case updates

Following the fight over members' phone records in Arctic Frost?

Get an email if Blackburn's lawsuit or Hagerty's bar complaint produces a ruling, if the Senate acts on subpoena-notice rules, or if Smith responds.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Source and context

Official statement

NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challenge (opens in a new tab)Individually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.

About this source

Blackburn and her attorneys state their objections to the collection of her records.

Before the quotation

Discussing internal legal advice.

After the quotation

She supports Blackburn's lawsuit.

How this statement is classified

Condemned

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

She condemns proceeding despite privilege concerns.

Recorded on
Published here

More from this case

Read the full case

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Margot Cleveland, Cleveland says low litigation risk did not excuse subpoenaing Blackburn's recordsDownload image (PNG)

The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Cleveland says low litigation risk did not excuse subpoenaing Blackburn's records
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/4360-cleveland-argues-that-smith-knowingly-disregarded-legislative-privilege

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Cleveland says low litigation risk did not excuse subpoenaing Blackburn's records". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4360-cleveland-argues-that-smith-knowingly-disregarded-legislative-privilege