Which means, in Chishti’s opinion, that he has to go to court to get his day in court. Though he’s made a great deal of money and has a publicist and other consultants, he’s representing himself in the U.S. “At this stage I have nothing to lose,” he says. “I’m already out of a job and I don’t have any reasonable career prospects going forward. So, in my opinion, it is appropriate to seek redress for the immense harm done to me and my family.”

The law turns out to be somewhat unclear on whether this is even possible. The Constitution’s speech and debate clause applies to members of Congress. Some states have formal protections for things said by others as part of public proceedings. But it’s murkier at the national level. Chishti’s suit avoids statements Spottiswoode made under subpoena, instead targeting communications she and her team may have had with Congress before she was subpoenaed (which he believes may not be fully protected) and social media posts and statements in the media after the testimony that essentially recount what she said (which he thinks are fair game). The suit also names her current and former lawyers, among others involved in her case.

There’s another way of looking at it, though, in which lawsuits like Chishti’s set a dangerous precedent. If the status quo creates an opportunity for someone in Chishti’s position to be treated unfairly, his lawsuit — and the similar legal action he’s undertaking against Spottiswoode in Britain — would, if it succeeds, represent an ominous new risk for witnesses who speak out against powerful, deep-pocketed people.

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing last year where Spottiswoode told her story, members from Democrat Pramila Jayapal on the left to Republican Jim Jordan on the right praised the bravery of the witnesses. “This is true courage, and this committee and the American people are grateful,” said Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the chair. But now, a year later, this recipient of congressional gratitude is on the receiving end of a lawsuit from someone with deep pockets, nothing to lose and enough motivation that he’s willing to look for opportunities in other countries as well.

For a young law student like Spottiswoode, having to fight off that threat would require a major amount of time and energy, in addition to whatever financial risk it entails — a powerful disincentive to speaking out.

The prospect of getting sued for speaking out “can have a far more chilling effect than workplace consequences,” says Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, the whistleblower-advocacy legal organization. “It’s a loophole that leaves whistleblowers defenseless against the ugliest and scariest forms of retaliation.”

Nancy Erika Smith, the attorney who represented Spottiswoode ahead of her testimony, says she’s not particularly worried — especially since, she says, Spottiswoode already prevailed in the mandatory arbitration required by Afiniti. “In our opinion, the law is clear that testimony before Congress is privileged,” she says. “We will respond with motions to dismiss this frivolous and harassing suit on numerous bases — not the least of which is that these claims have already been decided against Chishti in his chosen forum: forced arbitration.” (Chishti would not comment on the arbitration.)

Because she’s also named in Chishti’s suit as a result of having allegedly drafted Spottiswoode’s statement and made media comments afterwards, Smith, who has represented high-profile clients like Gretchen Carlson in her suit against Fox News and Roger Ailes, is now represented by counsel of her own, and declined further comment.

Spottiswoode and Smith’s lawyer in the Chishti case, John L. Slimm, did not respond to a request for comment.

When we talked this week, Chishti acknowledged that being fair to someone like him while protecting people who participate in public hearings requires a balancing act. But he also spoke in the very 2022 language of cancellation. “I have lost my job and my career is over,” he says. “I cannot raise capital in the public equity or debt markets to start or grow a business. I cannot join public service — something I have long wanted to do. Philanthropies have severed ties with me. I’m completely shunned.”

It’s the sort of posture that’s easy for activists to lampoon — a big shot complaining about shunning after accusations of frightening conduct are aired in the light of day. But the language of cancel-culture victimization is also the sort of thing that may resonate with the new GOP leadership of the committee that first heard the testimony about Chishti’s alleged misdeeds. Chishti wrote a letter this month to Jordan, who is likely to take over the committee next year, asking for an investigation into the hearing where he was maligned.

For the record, he said he’d be happy to testify.