What Is the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is the legal fight over a provision that let senators sue the federal government for money when their phone records were obtained without notice, and over the House bill that repealed it. No single court case carries that name. The "lawsuit" is the private right of action that Section 213 created and the suits that some senators said they would bring under it.
Section 213 sits in title II of division C of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, which became Public Law 119-37 when President Trump signed it on November 12, 2025. Senate Majority Leader John Thune added the language in the final hours before the bill that ended the 43-day shutdown passed.
The repeal bill is H.R. 6019, introduced by Representative Austin Scott of Georgia. Searches for the "repeal senator bill lawsuit" generally refer to this pair, the provision and the effort to undo it.
“Section 213 of title II of division C of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, and the amendments made by such section, are hereby repealed and shall have no force or effect.”
Source: H.R. 6019, 119th Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives on November 19, 2025
Why Was the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit Filed?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit was created because Senate leaders wanted senators to have a way to sue after learning that the FBI had analyzed their phone records. The Associated Press reported that the FBI in 2023 analyzed phone toll records for as many as 10 senators as part of an investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The records showed the date and time of calls but not their content.
Thune said the Justice Department's conduct under the Biden administration violated the separation of powers. He added the provision to the funding bill after the disclosure, and the White House reportedly had no objection to it.
The repeal effort has a different origin. House members of both parties objected to the provision after it appeared in the funding bill, calling it self-serving, and Speaker Mike Johnson promised a vote to undo it.
What Harms Does the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit Allege?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit involves three categories of harm, and they come from two different sides. The first two are grievances that supporters of Section 213 raised, and the third is the objection that critics raised against the provision itself.
Each category below defines the term and then describes what the parties say. These are positions and allegations, and no court has ruled on any of them.
Phone Records Obtained Without Notice
Notice, in a legal setting, is formal information given to a person that someone is seeking or has obtained their records.
Senators said they learned only afterward that investigators had reviewed their phone records. Verizon has said it did not notify the senators because the subpoenas came with court-authorized gag orders, as reported by Fox News.
Reporting also says a 2022 Senate contract with Verizon required notice to the Senate Sergeant at Arms of subpoenas for member office lines, and Senator Bill Hagerty asked the Federal Communications Commission to sanction Verizon over the disclosure. Those points come from news coverage, not from a court finding.
Separation of Powers Intrusion
Separation of powers is the constitutional principle that divides government authority among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
Thune argued that letting an executive agency collect private information on individual senators crosses that line. Senator Lindsey Graham went further and called the searches worse than Watergate.
Lawyers for former special counsel Jack Smith have called the actions lawful and consistent with Justice Department policy, according to reports. A court would have to decide which view is correct, and none has done so here.
Taxpayer-Funded Payouts
Statutory damages are a fixed amount that a law allows a court to award without proof of a specific financial loss.
House critics argued that elected officials should not profit from a government failure, and Representative Austin Scott called the provision the most self-serving language he had seen. Representative John Rose also submitted a resolution arguing that the payouts could vary senators' compensation in a way the 27th Amendment restricts.
This objection targets the money, not the notice requirement. Graham later said he would have accepted removing compensation while keeping notice, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
What Is the Current Status of the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit?
The current status of the Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is that Section 213 has been repealed and this page found no court case filed under it. The Albuquerque Journal reported on February 4, 2026 that Congress repealed the provision in appropriations bills that President Trump signed on Tuesday, which would be February 3, 2026.
This page could not read the enacted repeal text, so it cannot say how the repeal treats a claim that might already have existed. Only a lawyer reviewing the law and a senator's specific facts can answer that, and the newest source reviewed here is dated February 2026.
Section 213 (Public Law 119-37)
Section 213 gave a senator a private right of action against the United States when the senator's Senate data was obtained without notice. KTUU reported that damages were the greater of $500,000 or actual damages for each violation, plus legal fees.
| Proceeding Type | Statutory private right of action, not a filed court case |
| Law | Section 213, title II, division C, Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 |
| Public Law | 119-37 |
| Enacted | November 12, 2025 |
| Damages | Greater of $500,000 or actual damages per violation, plus legal fees |
| Retroactive To | January 1, 2022 |
| Exceptions | Senator was the target of a criminal investigation, or a court ordered notice delayed |
| Current Status | Repealed, reported signed February 3, 2026 |
H.R. 6019 and Related Repeal Measures
H.R. 6019 was the House's first repeal vehicle, and it cleared the chamber with no opposing votes. This page found no report that the Senate passed it as a standalone bill.
| Bill | H.R. 6019, to repeal Section 213 |
| Sponsor | Representative Austin Scott (R-Ga.) |
| House Vote | Roll Call 301, 426 yeas, 0 nays, 7 not voting, November 19, 2025 |
| Senate Companion | S. 3195, Anti-Cash Grab Act, introduced November 18, 2025 and referred to the Judiciary Committee |
| Senate Action | Graham objected to a unanimous consent request to pass the House bill |
| House Lawsuit Resolution | H.Res. 892 by Representative John Rose, referred to the Rules Committee November 19, 2025 |
| Final Repeal | Included in appropriations bills reported signed February 3, 2026 |
The House Clerk's roll call lists 426 yeas, no nays and seven members not voting. The Associated Press reported a 427 to 0 tally, so this page uses the Clerk's official figure.
Can Senators Still Collect $500,000 in the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit?
No. Senators cannot collect $500,000 under Section 213 now, because Congress repealed the provision and this page found no payment ever made under it.
No settlement, award or claims process exists, and the $500,000 figure was a statutory floor that was never tested in court. Whether the repeal affects a claim that arose earlier, or whether a senator has another legal route, depends on the enacted text and individual facts that only a qualified attorney can assess.
Graham said in November 2025 that he would sue regardless, and he later said his revised proposal would leave no enrichment for any senator, as reported by NBC News. Thune had earlier proposed that any damages be forfeited to the Treasury.
This page found no report of a filed complaint, a docket number or a ruling for any senator.
Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit updates below run from the 2023 records review through the early 2026 repeal. Every entry comes from the text of the bills, the House Clerk, or news coverage, and no court docket was found for any senator's suit.
Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit Timeline
Verizon Faces Questions at a Senate Hearing
Fox Baltimore reported that Verizon executives were questioned at a February 2026 hearing about subpoenaed lawmaker records, alongside executives from T-Mobile and AT&T. The report ties the hearing to the unnotified senator subpoenas, and the exact hearing date was not confirmed.
Repeal Reportedly Becomes Law
The Albuquerque Journal reported on February 4, 2026 that President Trump signed appropriations bills on Tuesday that repealed the senator payout provision. Senator Martin Heinrich, who sponsored the original Senate repeal bill, and Representative Teresa Leger Fernández, who sponsored a similar House measure, both voted against the package.
Graham Lifts His Hold on the Funding Package
NBC News reported that Lindsey Graham ended a hold on the spending package on January 30, 2026 after leaders promised a vote on his sanctuary cities bill and a vote on a revised Arctic Frost provision. Graham said the revision leaves no enrichment for him or anyone else.
House Adds Repeal to a Funding Rule
The House unanimously approved an amendment to the rule governing a must-pass funding package on January 22, 2026, according to CBS News. Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx offered it, and it would repeal the provision letting senators sue for $500,000 per violation.
Graham Blocks a Fast Senate Repeal
Lindsey Graham objected on the Senate floor when a Democratic senator sought unanimous consent to pass the House repeal bill. Thune joined him and proposed that any damages be forfeited to the Treasury, but that change was not made.
House Passes H.R. 6019 Without a Dissenting Vote
The House voted 426 to 0 on November 19, 2025 to pass H.R. 6019 under suspension of the rules, according to the Clerk's Roll Call 301. Representative John Rose submitted H.Res. 892 the same day, which would authorize the Speaker to sue and argue that Section 213 violates the 27th Amendment.
Tuberville Says He Will Sue
Senator Tommy Tuberville told Alabama Daily News on November 19, 2025 that he would sue "100%" over the searches of his phone records. He said he was not seeking monetary gain and did not say whether he would sue the government or individual Biden administration officials.
Senate Democrats Introduce the Anti-Cash Grab Act
Senator Martin Heinrich introduced S. 3195, the Anti-Cash Grab Act, on November 18, 2025 with dozens of Democratic and independent cosponsors. The bill would repeal Section 213 as if it had never been enacted and was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Sullivan Rules Out a Lawsuit
A spokesperson for Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan said on November 14, 2025 that he does not plan to sue and supports the House repeal effort. KTUU reported that Sullivan first learned of the provision while reading the bill.
Graham Announces He Will Sue
Lindsey Graham told reporters on November 13, 2025 that he planned to sue and would create opportunities for others to sue. He has said he would pursue the Justice Department and Verizon, which handed over the records.
Section 213 Becomes Law With the Shutdown Deal
The House passed the spending package 222 to 209 on November 12, 2025, and President Trump signed it that night, ending the 43-day shutdown, according to Roll Call. The package carried Section 213, which Speaker Mike Johnson said he would move to repeal the following week.
FBI Analyzes Senators' Phone Toll Records
The Associated Press reported that the FBI in 2023 analyzed phone records for as many as 10 senators during an investigation tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Alabama Daily News reports that the records covered calls from January 4 to January 7, 2021 and that the contents of the calls were not accessed.
Who Could Sue and Who Would Be Sued in the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit would have been brought by eight Republican senators whose phone records were reviewed in Jack Smith's January 6 investigation, and Graham named the Justice Department and Verizon as targets. Section 213 itself authorized a suit against the United States, so the Verizon claim rests on Graham's own statements.
KTUU named the eight senators as Ron Johnson, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Cynthia Lummis and Marsha Blackburn. The table below shows the public position found for each.
| Senator | Public Position Found |
|---|---|
| Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) | Said he will sue the Justice Department and Verizon |
| Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) | Said he will sue, and said he is not seeking money |
| Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) | Said he will not seek damages for himself |
| Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) | Said through a spokesperson he will not sue |
| Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, Marsha Blackburn | No plan to sue found in the sources reviewed |
Verizon's stated reason for not giving notice, the court-authorized gag orders described earlier, is the company's own position and has not been tested in a ruling on these facts.
How Does the Senator Repeal Bill Lawsuit Compare to Other Arctic Frost Disputes?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is one of several separate disputes that grew out of the Arctic Frost investigation, and none of them is the same proceeding. The table below separates them.
| Matter | Status | How It Differs |
|---|---|---|
| Arctic Frost investigation | Special counsel Jack Smith's January 6 probe | A criminal investigation, not a civil suit by senators |
| Hagerty request to the FCC about Verizon | Reported as a request that the Federal Communications Commission sanction Verizon | A regulatory request about the disclosure, not a claim for damages |
| Proposed House lawsuit (H.Res. 892) | Referred to the Rules Committee, no action found | Would challenge Section 213 itself, rather than seek money under it |
| Subpoenas of House members' records | Fox News reported such a subpoena involving Representative Jim Jordan | Section 213 covered Senate data only, so it gave House members no such right |
A reader searching for a different Arctic Frost matter, such as the Smith investigation itself, will not find it resolved by anything on this page.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit about?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is about Section 213, a provision that let senators sue the government when their phone records were obtained without notice, and about H.R. 6019, the House bill that sought to repeal it. It is not a single filed court case.
Is the Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
The Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is neither a class action nor an MDL. Section 213 gave each affected senator an individual right to sue, and only eight senators were identified as potentially covered, so no group of claimants can join.
Was Section 213 actually repealed?
Yes, Section 213 was repealed according to the Albuquerque Journal, which reported on February 4, 2026 that Trump had signed appropriations bills containing the repeal. This page could not read the enacted text, so it relies on that report.
How much could senators have collected under the provision?
Senators could have collected the greater of $500,000 or their actual damages for each violation, plus legal fees, under Section 213 as KTUU described it. No payment was found, and the provision is now repealed.
Has any senator filed a lawsuit over the phone records?
No court filing by a senator was found as of November 3, 2026. Lindsey Graham and Tommy Tuberville said they would sue, but this page located no complaint or docket number.
Is the Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit the same as the Arctic Frost investigation?
No, the Senator Repeal Bill lawsuit is not the same as the Arctic Frost investigation. Arctic Frost was the investigation whose phone record searches prompted Section 213, while the lawsuit dispute concerns the senators' right to sue over those searches.