Whether federal civil-rights statutes allow a damages suit against state legislators and their committee for investigative activity alleged to have a retaliatory purpose.
Holding
No. The 1871 statutes do not impose civil liability for conduct within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, even when the plaintiff alleges an improper motive.
Reasoning
Legislative immunity has deep roots in English and American law. It protects representatives from the threat of lawsuits so they can carry out their public duties freely; it is not a personal reward for legislators.
Congress used general language in the 1871 civil-rights statutes. The Court would not read that language to silently displace the longstanding protection for state legislators acting within their legislative sphere.
The privilege depends on the nature of the activity, not an allegation about the legislators’ motives. Allowing a claim to proceed merely because a plaintiff alleges retaliation would expose legislators to the burdens of trial and undermine the protection. The privilege has limits, however: a committee cannot claim it for an investigation that plainly usurps functions reserved to another branch.
Investigations are an established legislative function. Brandhove’s petition challenged the committee’s work and appeared to conflict with testimony he had previously given it. The committee could call him to examine those matters, so its conduct fell within the protected legislative sphere.