EXCLUSIVE: Jack Smith Hit With Lawsuit Over Secret Seizure of GOP Senator's Phone Records — Marsha Blackburn Claims Prosecutor 'Conspired' to Violate Her Rights

Jack Smith is accused by Sen. Marsha Blackburn of violating her constitutional rights by secretly obtaining her phone records.
Sept. 30 2026, Published 8:27 p.m. ET
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has been slapped with a bombshell federal lawsuit accusing him of secretly obtaining Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn's phone records and "conspiring" to violate her constitutional rights, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
Blackburn filed the 46-page complaint against Smith in federal court in Tennessee on September 30, naming the Department of Justice as a relief defendant.
Secret Phone Records Fight

Smith is accused of secretly obtaining Blackburn's phone records.
According to court documents obtained by Radar, the Tennessee senator claims Smith and other federal officials targeted toll records associated with a cellphone she used for legislative purposes while investigating efforts surrounding the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
The records allegedly disclosed information about Blackburn's associates as well as the times and durations of her conversations — without revealing the substance of the calls.
Blackburn claims the extraordinary move deprived her of an opportunity to challenge the subpoena and assert protections afforded to members of Congress under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause. Her lawsuit further alleges Smith and other officials concealed from a federal court and Verizon that the subpoena targeted the phone records of a sitting U.S. senator.
According to the complaint, investigators secured a nondisclosure order preventing Verizon from notifying Blackburn about the demand for her records.
Marsha Blackburn Says She Was Kept in the Dark

Blackburn claims she was prevented from challenging the subpoena.
Blackburn argues that secrecy prevented her from challenging the subpoena in court before her information was turned over. Smith has previously acknowledged approving the congressional toll-record subpoenas.
His December 2025 congressional deposition, cited in Blackburn's complaint, quotes the former special counsel as testifying: "I approved these subpoenas, yes." Smith also acknowledged seeking nondisclosure orders and said such orders can mean people who might have grounds to challenge a subpoena are temporarily unable to make those arguments.
Blackburn's lawsuit now alleges those actions crossed a constitutional line. She accuses Smith of conspiring with others to violate her rights under the Speech or Debate Clause, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, as well as federal civil rights law.
Jack Smith Admitted Approving Subpoenas

Smith previously acknowledged approving congressional toll-record subpoenas.
The senator further alleges she was targeted because she is a Republican and a supporter of President Trump. Those claims are Blackburn's allegations and have not been adjudicated by the court.
The complaint also launches a broader attack on Smith's former authority, arguing his 2022 appointment by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause.
Blackburn contends Smith consequently lacked lawful authority to exercise the powers of a special counsel — another legal argument the newly filed case asks the court to resolve. Smith was appointed to oversee investigations involving Trump, including the probe into alleged efforts to interfere with the transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election.
Constitutional Showdown


Blackburn is asking a federal court for relief over the records.
Blackburn is now asking the court for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages. She also wants relief concerning the phone records still controlled by the Justice Department.
The lawsuit states: "These facts and others laid out below establish that Defendant Smith conspired to violate Senator Blackburn's constitutional and civil rights.
Smith has previously defended his investigative work and maintained his actions were based on the facts and the law. The newly filed case now puts the legality of one of his investigation's most controversial tactics directly before a federal court.


