Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., is arguing the speech and debate clause of the Constitution should protect his cellphone data from being used by federal investigators seeking to find a crime in its investigation of Jan. 6.
Perry's lawyers argued a lawmaker's cellphone is an extension of his official role on Congress and the Constitution protects it from an investigation such as the Jan. 6 investigator's hunt for a crime, The Hill reported.
"There's no reason, your honor, that speech, that privilege applies to a congressman's office, but not to his cellphone," Perry's attorney John Rowley told three judges Thursday on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to the report.
The FBI seized Perry's cellphone last August and copied the data before returning it, but Perry is suing to block the use of its contents in the government's ongoing search for a crime in the investigation of Jan. 6 and the objections to the 2020 presidential election.
Perry attended several meetings around former President Donald Trump's potential challenges of the 2020 presidential election, particularly in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, according to The Hill.
Trump campaign officials have long claimed the state skirted constitutional authority by bypassing the state legislature in changing election processes under the guise of COVID, including mail-in ballots and how/when they would be received and counted.
Judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals questioned the broad claims of the speech and debate clause.
"How is it similar to things like speaking on the floor, casting a vote, deliberating, and debating about legislation?" Judge Neomi Rao asked.
Judge Gregory Katsas said the cellphone communications are not limited to Congress, though.
"It's not the cellphone that makes this odd, it's that the communication can be to anyone in the universe," Katsas said, according to the report.
The judges reportedly were equally skeptical of the Biden Justice Department's argument that Perry was not a member of an investigative committee.
"Why wouldn't an individual member's fact-finding be covered?" Rao asked, according to The Hill.
The case is an important one judicially, because it would provide precedent on the speech and debate clause, which is also being cited by former Vice President Mike Pence on legal challenges of a subpoena to cooperate with the Biden DOJ's search for a crime in its Jan. 6 investigation.
Eric Mack ✉
Eric Mack has been a writer and editor at Newsmax since 2016. He is a 1998 Syracuse University journalism graduate and a New York Press Association award-winning writer.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.