886 F. Supp. 2d 1301
N.D. Fla.2012Background
- The issue is whether Florida state legislators have a federal legislative privilege not to testify about legislative functions.
- This proceeding is ancillary to a DC district court preclearance case under the Voting Rights Act §5, involving Florida's preclearance request.
- Intervenors served subpoenas in this district seeking depositions of specific legislators and staff.
- The United States supports the depositions; the state and legislators/staff oppose them.
- The court treats the question as one of federal common law; it is a first-impression decision in this context.
- The court denies the motion to compel depositions and closes the file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative privilege to refuse deposition on purpose | Purpose evidence could be relevant to preclearance. | Legislative privilege bars compelled deposition on legislative purpose. | Privilege exists; deposition denied. |
| Extent of privilege to staff | Staff testimony may reveal deliberative process relevant to purpose. | Staff are protected to the same extent as legislators to safeguard deliberations. | Privilege extends to staff to protect deliberative process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (legislative purpose inquiries are highly intrusive and usually avoided)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. Supreme Court 1951) (limits on compelled testimony about legislative acts)
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (state legislators' privilege not absolute in civil proceedings)
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (Speech or Debate Clause covers aides' conduct as legislative acts)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (legislative purpose considerations in equal-protection contexts)