Can Jeff Sessions Be Prosecuted for Perjury?

We asked three constitutional law professors. Here’s what they said.

Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Late Wednesday night, the Washington Post broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential campaign, contacts he failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation hearings. “I did not have communications with the Russians,” said Sessions during his sworn testimony. As a growing list of lawmakers call for Sessions to recuse himself from the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election—and some Democrats demand his resignation—an open question remains: Can Jeff Sessions be prosecuted for perjury?

The answer is not exactly cut and dry. At the time of his confirmation hearings, Sessions was still serving as a senator from Alabama. The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause shields lawmakers from prosecution for lying during proceedings in the House or Senate. The clause was written with the intent to foster debate in Congress without the threat of lawsuits stifling discussion. So, since Sessions was a sitting Senator when he allegedly misled Congress, does that mean he’s off the hook? Mother Jones put the question to three constitutional law experts.

“There might be other things he can be prosecuted for,” says Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Cornell University, referencing laws that allow Congress to hold individuals in contempt for providing false testimony. But, says Chafetz, Sessions can’t be prosecuted for perjury.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe sees it differently. “That would be a laughable misuse of the Speech and Debate Clause,” he says. “He was testifying under oath as an [attorney general] nominee, not in the discharge of any Senatorial business of his own.”

Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman says he’s inclined to believe that Sessions is not protected by the clause. Still, Ackerman says there’s no decisive case law on the issue, which muddies the waters. “Only one thing is clear,” he says, “Sessions must recuse himself, and it is incumbent on the Administration to appoint a special prosecutor.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend