Graham's Legal Gambit: Senator Holds Up Spending Bill in Push for Right to Sue Government

By David Morgan and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (Reuters) – A last-minute push by Senator Lindsey Graham to revive a contentious legal provision has thrown a wrench into bipartisan efforts to pass a critical government funding bill ahead of a midnight Friday shutdown deadline.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, is blocking swift Senate action on the spending package, which would keep agencies like the Pentagon and the Department of Labor operating. His central demand: a vote to restore a measure that would grant him and other lawmakers the right to sue the Justice Department for damages, stemming from the seizure of their phone records during the congressional investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

"I will prevent this vote unless we also vote on this provision," Graham declared on the Senate floor, framing it as a matter of accountability. "This is about standing up for the rights of every citizen, including those in this chamber."

The provision, initially tucked into a massive spending bill last fall, sparked bipartisan outrage and was widely condemned as an inappropriate enrichment mechanism for public officials. It was subsequently stripped out by the House, with Speaker Mike Johnson calling it "shocking." Current U.S. law severely restricts the ability of individuals to sue the federal government for damages.

Graham expressed sharp frustration with the reversal, directly addressing Johnson: "You jammed me. Speaker Johnson, I won't forget this." He argued the provision should be broadened to also allow outside groups targeted by the January 6 probe to seek damages, claiming any monetary awards would flow back to the Treasury, not to lawmakers personally.

Analysts note the maneuver highlights the fragile nature of spending negotiations, where individual senators can leverage must-pass bills to advance personal or political priorities. Graham has also tied his objection to a demand for a vote on a separate measure requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

While the immediate impact of Graham's hold remains unclear, several colleagues predicted his effort would ultimately fail. "Voters may remember that more than a failed procedural vote," remarked Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, hinting at potential political repercussions.

The standoff unfolds against a backdrop of heightened legal tensions between political figures and the government. Separately, former President Donald Trump recently filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department over the disclosure of his tax returns.

/// Reader Commentary ///

Mark T., Political Science Professor, Boston: "This is a classic case of legislative hostage-taking. While Graham frames it as a principled stand on oversight, it dangerously ties essential governance to a narrow, self-referential legal claim, undermining the budget process's integrity."

Sarah Chen, Legal Analyst, D.C. Think Tank: "The legal premise is exceptionally weak. The sovereign immunity doctrine isn't meant to be waived for the benefit of the legislators themselves. This sets a troubling precedent that could open floodgates to frivolous litigation against the government."

Jim R., Veteran, Florida: "Absolutely disgraceful! While our troops and federal workers wait to see if they get paid, he's throwing a tantrum over a lawsuit to line his own pockets—because that's what it is, no matter how he spins it. It's the height of selfishness from a career politician."

Priya Sharma, Budget Policy Expert: "The procedural delay itself has real costs, creating uncertainty for agencies and contractors. It demonstrates how hyper-individualized demands can destabilize the entire appropriations system, even when a broader bipartisan deal is at hand."

(Reporting by David Morgan and Richard Cowan; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Cynthia Osterman)