Alabama Education Ass'n v. Bentley
803 F.3d 1298
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2011 AEA (Alabama Education Association) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Alabama Act 2010-761, which prohibited payroll deductions for organizations that use dues for political activity, forcing unions to choose payroll collection or political spending.
- The district court initially enjoined enforcement on vagueness/overbreadth grounds; this court narrowed that injunction and later held the statute not overbroad or void for vagueness.
- AEA pursued a remaining retaliation theory: that Act 761 was passed with a subjective motive to punish AEA for prior political speech.
- AEA served subpoenas on four senior Alabama lawmakers (two governors and two legislative leaders) seeking documents about the Act and lawmakers’ communications; the lawmakers moved to quash asserting legislative and other governmental privileges.
- The district court denied the motions to quash, finding procedural defects in the privilege assertions based on Third Circuit precedent. The lawmakers appealed; this Court accepted interlocutory appeals and mandamus petitions and stayed production.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding it had appellate jurisdiction and that the legislative privilege barred the subpoenas because AEA’s remaining claim attacked the subjective motives behind a facially constitutional statute (O’Brien rule) and thus did not justify intruding on legislative privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear immediate appeal of denial of motions to quash by nonparty lawmakers | AEA: Circuit precedent limiting pre-contempt appeals to the government itself; Mohawk undermines pre-contempt appeals | Lawmakers: Eleventh Circuit precedent allows nonparty government officials to immediately appeal discovery orders denying governmental privileges | Court: Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction under its precedent permitting nonparty government officials to appeal immediacy (Branch/Cates/Carr) |
| Sufficiency of privilege invocation procedures | AEA: Lawmakers failed to satisfy procedural prerequisites (per O’Neill) and thus forfeited privileges | Lawmakers: Motions to quash and counsel filings sufficiently presented privilege; formal affidavits or personal document review not required here | Court: District court erred; Branch precedent controls — no need for the strict O’Neill formalities; privilege was properly invoked |
| Scope/applicability of legislative privilege to subpoenas seeking lawmakers’ motives | AEA: First Amendment retaliation claim justifies discovery into lawmakers’ motives | Lawmakers: Legislative privilege protects motive inquiries, especially when the only remaining claim targets subjective motive | Court: Legislative privilege protects motive inquiries; where the lawsuit’s sole remaining claim seeks legislators’ subjective motives, the privilege bars the subpoenas |
| Validity of First Amendment retaliation claim based on alleged illicit legislative motive | AEA: Retaliation claim survives dismissal under Eleventh Circuit precedent (Gwinnett County) | Lawmakers: O’Brien forbids invalidating facially constitutional statutes based on alleged illicit legislative motive; thus no important federal interest justifies piercing privilege | Court: O’Brien controls for generally applicable, facially constitutional statutes; Gwinnett is distinguishable (targeted singling out) — AEA’s claim is not cognizable, so privilege stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (courts may not void a facially constitutional statute based on alleged illicit legislative motive)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) (recognizing legislative privilege for acts within legitimate legislative activity)
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980) (distinguishing criminal prosecutions from civil suits for purposes of legislative privilege)
- Brewster v. United States, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) (legislative privilege protects inquiry into legislative motive)
- Gwinnett County Educ. Ass’n v. Georgia Ass’n of Educators, 856 F.2d 142 (11th Cir. 1988) (retaliation claim upheld where officials specifically singled out a particular group)
- Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1981) (government officials may immediately appeal discovery orders denying governmental privileges)