In Re: Raimondo v.
20-2120P
| 1st Cir. | Sep 21, 2021Background
- RhodeWorks (R.I. Gen. Laws § 42‑13.1) authorized bridge tolls targeted to large commercial trucks, exempted passenger vehicles, and imposed per‑facility and per‑day toll caps; a CDM Smith report indicated the caps shifted a greater share of costs to out‑of‑state trucks.
- American Trucking sued state entities under the dormant Commerce Clause, alleging RhodeWorks discriminated in purpose and effect against interstate commerce.
- Plaintiffs subpoenaed former Governor Raimondo, former Speaker Mattiello, Rep. Ucci (the State Officials), and consultant CDM Smith for documents and depositions to prove discriminatory intent; the State Officials moved to quash asserting legislative privilege (and Raimondo also invoked deliberative‑process privilege).
- The district court denied all motions to quash, finding American Trucking’s discovery interest outweighed privilege and refused interlocutory certification; State Officials appealed and petitioned for mandamus.
- The First Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal by non‑party State Officials, denied mandamus as to CDM Smith, but granted an advisory writ reversing the district court as to the State Officials and directing the district court to quash their subpoenas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (American Trucking) | Defendant's Argument (State Officials/RIDOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over non‑party subpoena denial | Immediate interlocutory appeal should be allowed given privilege and federalism stakes | Non‑party subpoena denials are not immediately appealable; must defy subpoena and incur contempt to appeal | Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction (citing controlling circuit precedent) |
| Availability of mandamus to review subpoenas to State Officials | Mandamus not appropriate; ordinary remedies suffice | Advisory mandamus warranted because unsettled law, federalism concerns, recurrence likelihood, and practical barriers to appeal | Granted advisory mandamus as to State Officials (extraordinary review appropriate) |
| Scope of legislative privilege for state lawmakers in private dormant Commerce Clause suits | Discovery of legislators’ motives is necessary to prove discriminatory purpose; federal interest in enforcing dormant Commerce Clause outweighs privilege | Legislative privilege (federal common law) protects state lawmakers from discovery absent strong federal interest; comity and legislative independence favor protection | Denied discovery from State Officials; legislative privilege applies because proof of discriminatory effect is primary and intrusion into motives is rarely justified |
| Applicability of privilege to private consultant (CDM Smith) | Consultant not protected by legislative privilege; discovery is proper and probative | Consultant’s work is intertwined with legislative process and should be shielded | Mandamus denied for CDM Smith; discovery as to consultant may proceed (less compelling mandamus factors, private party can seek review later) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (rule that a subpoena recipient generally must obey or risk contempt to appeal)
- Corporacion Insular de Seguros v. Garcia, 876 F.2d 254 (1st Cir.) (nonparty privilege claims ordinarily not immediately appealable)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 909 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.) (advisory mandamus standards; federalism considerations weigh in favor of review)
- In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.) (contrast on immediate appealability and treatment of legislative privilege)
- United States v. Gravel, 408 U.S. 606 (Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts from interrogation)
- United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (Speech or Debate Clause creates absolute protection for federal legislators)
- United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (limits of relying on individual legislators' motives to infer legislative purpose)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (legislative motives rarely allowed; statutory text and effects primary in constitutional inquiry)
- Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (dormant Commerce Clause as a central federal concern)