How do arrest privileges differ between the House of Representatives and the Senate?

1. What the Constitution actually says — identical wording for both chambers

Article I, Section 6 uses identical language for “Senators and Representatives,” granting both classes of members the privilege from arrest while attending sessions and traveling to or from them, with the same three explicit exceptions: treason, felony, and breach of the peace ^{[1] [4]}. Every mainstream legal summary reproduces that textual parity between the House and Senate ^{[2] [5]}.

2. How courts and commentators have narrowed the scope — civil arrests, not criminal immunity

Court decisions and legal commentaries have long read the clause as applying chiefly to civil arrests (debtor’s arrests, civil process) and not to criminal arrests: the exceptions for “treason, felony, and breach of the peace” have been interpreted to withdraw criminal matters from the privilege’s protection ^{[2] [3]}. Deschler’s Precedents and constitutional annotations similarly note the historical focus on civil matters and early litigation that limited broader claims of immunity ^{[6] [4]}.

3. Practical effect — protection against tactical use of civil process, not a get‑out‑of‑jail card

Legal guides and constitutional scholars emphasize the clause’s practical aim: to stop executives or private litigants from using arrests or service of process to prevent a member’s attendance or influence votes — essentially an operational protection for legislative functioning — rather than to shield members from ordinary criminal accountability ^{[7] [5] [3]}.

4. Shared enforcement and internal chamber powers — both Houses can act similarly

Both the House and Senate have internal procedures to enforce their authority, including contempt powers that can result in arrest by the Sergeant‑at‑Arms; those contempt processes and remedies operate within each chamber’s procedures and apply to persons the chamber cites, though relevant historical examples and procedures are complex ^[8]. This internal capacity does not equate to differing arrest privileges between members of the two chambers; the constitutional text and commentary treat the two houses in parity on arrest privilege ^{[1] [8]}.

5. Litigation and precedent that shape boundaries — examples and limits

Key cases cited in the annotated Constitution and legal commentary establish boundaries: courts have refused to extend the privilege to shield members from criminal arrest or to excuse illegal conduct that falls outside legislative acts; they have also limited claims that the clause forbids service of process in all contexts ^{[2] [3] [6]}. When disputes touch on Speech or Debate protections versus arrest privilege, courts distinguish legislative acts protected from questioning (Speech or Debate) from other conduct not entitled to immunity ^{[7] [2]}.

6. Areas where sources are silent or contested — nuance and remaining questions

Available sources do not mention any constitutional or statutory rule that makes arrest privileges different in practice between the House and Senate beyond the shared constitutional text (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide exhaustive modern case law cataloguing every instance of arrests involving members, so empirical claims about recent or rare applications beyond the general legal principle are not documented here (not found in current reporting).

7. Why this matters — separation of powers and accountability tensions

The clause reflects a tension between protecting legislative independence (preventing executive or private interference through tactical arrests or suits) and preserving rule‑of‑law accountability (allowing prosecution for serious criminal conduct). Commentary and precedent consistently stress that protection of legislative function is the objective, and both chambers enjoy the same textual privilege; courts and chamber procedures supply the limits ^{[2] [3] [8]}.

If you want, I can pull specific case summaries (e.g., Long v. Ansell, Gravel, Gravel-related holdings) and link the exact passages in the Constitution Annotated and Deschler’s Precedents cited above for deeper reading ^{[6] [7] [4]}.