A test is shaping up for one of the Constitution’s most adamant provisions, the Speech or Debate Clause, now that Representative Nancy Mace is being sued for a speech she delivered on the House floor. In February, Ms. Mace herself characterized her tirade as a “scorched earth” speech. She accused four men in her district, including her ex-fiancé, of “some of the most heinous crimes against women imaginable.” One of them is now suing her for defamation.

The individuals named by the South Carolina congresswoman for what the Hill calls “allegations of sexual abuse and voyeurism” deny any wrongdoing. The man suing Ms. Mace, Brian Musgrave, says that he is filing for defamation “to recover that which has been wrongfully taken from him — his good name and reputation.” Ms. Mace’s speech prompted him to declare: “‘I am not a rapist.’ ‘I am not a predator.’ ‘I am not a sex trafficker,’” the lawsuit says. 

Yet Mr. Musgrave in his lawsuit concedes he could face a constitutional roadblock in the Speech or Debate Clause, which offers a sweeping immunity to federal lawmakers. The lawsuit admits that the clause “affords broad protection to members of Congress.” Indeed, the parchment states that “Senators and Representatives,” for “any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

These columns have previously dilated on the immunity offered by the clause, inviting readers to direct their attention to the word “any.” It is, the Sun noted in an editorial titled “Any,” a “small, English-language word of only three letters. Easy to pronounce. Has a nice, two-syllable beat.” The editorial went on to say that “one would think that a United States district judge would be able to grasp its meaning.” 

After all, the editorial continued, “the sages who framed our Constitution had lots of options if they wanted to modify the phrase ‘speech or debate.’ They could have said, say, for ‘a speech and debate.’ Or ‘some speech and debate.’” Yet, in the end, the Framers “didn’t choose some other way to modify what speech and what debate they were talking about. They could have said any speech or debate that involves legislative matters.”

The Founders didn’t choose,  the Sun added, to limit the legislators’ immunity to speech or debate that “doesn’t involve scandal. Or doesn’t involve elections.”  The clause, too, uses “any” to limit where the solons could be “questioned” over any speech. Not “in any other Place,” besides the Congress, the parchment says. Despite all these protections for federal lawmakers, Mr. Musgrave’s lawyers appear not to be daunted, if the lawsuit is any guide.

The speech and debate clause, Mr. Musgrave reckons, “does not transform the floor of Congress into a sanctuary for defamation, nor does it protect” Ms. Mace’s “extra-Congressional defamatory statements surrounding her speech.” Ms. Mace, in addition to making her accusations on the House floor, had also aired them in a press release and a posting on the social media platform X. Will the shield of the Speech or Debate clause protect the lawmaker?

In 2022 a similar question arose when Senator Graham was ordered to testify before a Georgia grand jury investigating the aftermath of the 2020 election. Mr. Graham, pointing to the clause, demurred. The Supreme Court decided that while the clause protected the senator from questioning over “legislative activity,” other topics were fair game, and he went on to testify. If that precedent holds for Ms. Mace, it marks a caution for the congresswoman.

We confess that we have mixed feelings about the Speech and Debate clause. We understand the fretting of the Founders in respect of libel law. They wanted to embolden the Congress to carry out a forceful debate. The clause, though, has over the years emboldened the most feckless branch of the government to issue cataracts of cowardliness and calumny, and it’s no wonder that the meaning of “any” is being tested.