177 A.3d 1000
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s 2011 congressional redistricting (Act 131 of 2011) and sought broad discovery into the map‑drawing process and communications.
- Legislative Respondents (PA General Assembly, Speaker Turzai, President Pro Tempore Scarnati) asserted Pennsylvania’s Speech and Debate Clause (Art. II, §15) to block discovery, arguing it affords absolute immunity and privilege for legislative acts.
- Petitioners cited federal and other state gerrymandering cases (e.g., Bethune‑Hill; League of Women Voters of Florida) that recognize only a qualified legislative privilege in federal/common‑law contexts.
- The Court reviewed Pennsylvania precedent equating the state Speech and Debate Clause’s scope to the federal Clause and emphasizing broad, absolute protection for activities within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity," including staff and investigatory work.
- The Court concluded Act 131’s consideration and passage were unquestionably legislative acts and held it lacked authority to compel testimony or documents reflecting legislators’ intentions, motivations, or activities concerning Act 131.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Speech and Debate protection for state legislative materials | Petitioners: federal/generally recognized qualified privilege allows discovery into state legislative materials for gerrymandering claims | Legislative Respondents: PA Art. II §15 provides absolute immunity/privilege for legislative acts and related staff activities | Court: Speech and Debate Clause of PA provides absolute protection for activities within legitimate legislative sphere; cannot compel such materials |
| Applicability of federal/state precedents (Bethune‑Hill, LWV of FL) | Petitioners: these cases support a qualified privilege and permit discovery | Legislative Respondents: federal/common‑law decisions do not control state courts bound by PA Constitution; FL lacks a speech & debate clause | Court: Federal and some state decisions are not persuasive here; PA constitutional provision controls and yields absolute protection |
| Third‑party subpoenas (RNC, NRCC, RSLC, SGLF, consultants) seeking communications with legislators/staff | Petitioners: third parties may possess relevant, nonprivileged documents | Legislative Respondents: subpoenas would force production of materials revealing legislative intentions/activities protected by Speech and Debate | Court: Struck subpoena requests that seek communications with legislators/staff (paragraph 1(g) and specified 1(e) persons). Left other third‑party categories intact but ordered exclusion of documents that reflect legislators’ intentions/motivations/activities regarding Act 131 |
| Subpoena to Governor Corbett & other nonlegislative materials | Petitioners: Governor and others may hold nonlegislative, relevant materials | Legislative Respondents: some Corbett materials may implicate legislative privilege if they reveal legislative intentions/activities | Court: Did not quash subpoena outright; ordered requests interpreted to exclude documents reflecting legislators’ intentions/motivations/activities concerning Act 131 |
Key Cases Cited
- Consumers Educ. and Prot. Ass’n v. Nolan, 368 A.2d 675 (Pa. 1977) (state Speech and Debate Clause construed like federal Clause; broad protection)
- Consumer Party of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 507 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1986) (legislators entitled to absolute immunity for acts within legitimate legislative sphere)
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (speech and debate protection extends to legislative aides and certain legislative activities)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (Speech and Debate Clause reinforces separation of powers and shields legislative processes from judicial intrusion)
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980) (dual rationales: avoid intrusion by coequal branches and protect legislative independence)
- Government of the Virgin Islands v. Lee, 775 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1985) (protected legislative fact‑finding, information gathering, and investigative activities)
- Bethune‑Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323 (E.D. Va. 2015) (federal common‑law approach: state legislative privilege is qualified and fact‑specific)
- League of Women Voters of Florida v. Florida House of Representatives, 132 So.3d 135 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court adopted a qualified, common‑law legislative privilege in absence of state speech and debate clause)