🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Donald Trump has suffered a double blow after the Supreme Court and a federal judge ruled against him in two cases, following a string of victories for the former president.
The Supreme Court rejected a request for South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham not to testify in front of a Georgia grand jury investigating alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The decision came one day after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that sought to void two subpoenas from the January 6 House select committee.
In a short ruling on Tuesday, SCOTUS paved the way for Graham to answer questions under oath as part of the criminal investigation into alleged election interference led by Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis.
Investigators want to speak to Graham about phone calls he had with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the days after the 2020 election where the senator is accused of inquiring about absentee ballots in order to "explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome" for Trump.
Graham has described the allegations he was attempting to have some absentee ballots thrown out as "ridiculous." The Republican argued that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause, which states members of Congress can't be questioned on matters pertaining to their legislative duties, means he shouldn't have to testify to the Fulton County special grand jury.
The SCOTUS order, which has no dissents, rejected these arguments but noted that Graham could still raise objections to some questions.
"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 ... and they held that Senator Graham may not be questioned about such activities," the order said.
"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."
The ruling dissolved a temporary hold that Justice Clarence Thomas issued on Graham's testimony while SCOTUS judges examined the arguments.
Fulton County investigators subpoenaed Graham in July while widening its criminal inquiry into alleged election interference. The probe was previously focused on Trump's phone call with Raffensperger urging the secretary of state to "find" 11,780 votes which would have resulted in the former president beating Joe Biden in the state in 2020.
The original ruling from Thomas to put Graham's testimony on hold was the latest in a line of court decisions which had gone in Trump's favor.
In the investigation into claims the former president mishandled classified documents retrieved at his Mar-a-Lago resort, federal Judge Aileen Cannon granted a number of requests from Trump's legal team.
This included appointing a special master to review the thousands of seized materials, which the Department of Justice did not deem necessary, and then choosing Raymond Dearie for the role, who was one of two picks put forward by Trump's counsel.
Cannon then rejected a request from Dearie that Trump's legal team formally state if the list of items the FBI say they removed from Mar-a-Lago in August is inaccurate.
The ruling meant the former president could not testify under oath that he believes federal agents may have "planted" evidence against him, despite frequently making the unsubstantiated claim, or state which documents he apparently declassified.
However, the SCOTUS ruling to allow Graham to testify in Georgia is the second court decision to go against Trump in a matter of days.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled that Meadows, the former president's ex-chief of staff, also cannot argue that the Constitution's "Speech or Debate Clause" prevents him from testifying to the House Select Committee investigating the events leading up to the Capitol riot.
Meadows has been fighting fully complying with the January 6 panel for more than a year and could still yet appeal the latest court ruling.
"We will review the decision carefully and consider any further steps that may be appropriate," Meadows' attorney George Terwilliger told Politico.
Meadows was cooperating with the subpoena at first, handing over thousands of text messages sent to him by Republican figures in the days around January 6, but has refused to sit for a deposition and withheld other documents while citing executive privilege.
However, with the committee's work winding down and almost certain to close if the GOP win back control of the House in next week's midterms, the chances of Meadows actually being made to testify are narrowing by the day.
Nichols' decision arrived days after a South Carolina judge ruled that Meadows must also testify before the Fulton County grand jury investigating alleged attempts to overturn the last presidential election.
About the writer
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, and Florida ... Read more