Docket for 22A337
|
| Oct 21 2022 | Application (22A337) for stay and writ of injunction pending appeal, submitted to Justice Thomas. | | Main DocumentLower Court Orders/OpinionsOtherProof of Service | | Oct 22 2022 | Response to application (22A337) requested by Justice Thomas, due by 5 p.m. (EDT), Thursday, October 27, 2022. | | | | Oct 24 2022 | Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant, it is ordered that the August 15, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, case No. 1:22-CV-03027, as modified by the district court’s September 1, 2022 order, is hereby stayed pending further order of Justice Thomas or of the Court. | | | | Oct 25 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Texas, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Utah. | | Main DocumentProof of ServiceOtherMain Document | | Oct 27 2022 | Response to application from respondent Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury filed. | | Main DocumentProof of ServiceMain Document | | Oct 27 2022 | Motion for leave to file brief of amicus curiae filed by Derek T. Muller. | | Main DocumentProof of ServiceMain DocumentOther | | Oct 27 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Separation of Powers Clinic at Antonin Scalia Law School. | | Main DocumentMain DocumentOtherProof of Service | | Oct 27 2022 | Motion for leave to file brief for amici curiae filed by Former Federal Prosecutors. | | Main DocumentOtherProof of Service | | Oct 28 2022 | Reply of applicant Lindsey Graham, United States Senator filed. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Nov 01 2022 | Application (22A337) referred to the Court. | | | | Nov 01 2022 | Application (22A337) for stay and an injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Thomas is vacated.
The lower courts assumed that the informal investigative fact-finding that Senator Graham assertedly engaged in constitutes legislative activity protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, U. S. Const. Art. I, §6, cl. 1, and they held that Senator Graham may not be questioned about such activities. The lower courts also made clear that Senator Graham may return to the District Court should disputes arise regarding the application of the Speech or Debate Clause immunity to specific questions. Accordingly, a stay or injunction is not necessary to safeguard the Senator’s Speech or Debate Clause immunity. | | |
|