Thread by @CevallosLaw

1) Could Trump really sue @AdamSchiff and @SpeakerPelosi, as he suggested on Saturday?
It sounds absurd, right? Members of Congress must be entitled to complete legislative immunity for their work. And yet, the answer is...

Maybe?

2) Art. I, §6 of the Constitution: ""for any
Speech or Debate in either House, [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." The idea was that members of Congress could work without fear of liability.

3) S&D Clause was "designed to assure a coequal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation." It is supposed to "prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary."

4) But...SCOTUS has limited the scope of this immunity to conduct that is an integral part of "the due functioning of the legislative process," like voting, or "things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it,"

5) For these narrowly-defined "core" acts, a Member of Congress has the force field of absolute immunity, from both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution. However...

6) SCOTUS has held Speech or Debate Clause protection or immunity does not extend to ALL other congressional "speech" or work, e.g., speaking with constituents and the press. Of course, this is something all members of Congress have to do, all the time.

7) Members of Congress should not have absolute immunity from everything. A member of Congress should be subject to civil or criminal liability for, say, a DUI or assault. But, they should be immune from civil or criminal liability for, say, voting on a controversial bill.

8) Ultimately, if Trump were to sue members of Congress, the odds are that the case would get tossed...but this is not an absolute...because legislative immunity is not absolute.