Jaffee v. Redmond
518 U.S. 1 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and their patient during diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure in federal civil cases. This psychotherapist-patient privilege extends to licensed clinical social workers.
Facts:
- On June 27, 1991, Mary Lu Redmond, a police officer for the Village of Hoffman Estates, was the first to respond to a 'fight in progress' call at an apartment complex.
- Upon arrival, Redmond was informed that a stabbing had occurred inside one of the apartments.
- As she approached the building, Ricky Allen ran out chasing another man while brandishing what Redmond identified as a butcher knife.
- Redmond repeatedly commanded Allen to drop the weapon, but he did not comply.
- Believing Allen was about to stab the man he was chasing, Redmond shot and killed him.
- Following the shooting, Redmond participated in approximately 50 counseling sessions with Karen Beyer, a licensed clinical social worker employed by the Village of Hoffman Estates.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Ricky Allen's estate sued Officer Mary Lu Redmond and the Village of Hoffman Estates in the U.S. District Court, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Illinois wrongful-death statute.
- During discovery, the plaintiff sought notes from Redmond's counseling sessions with Karen Beyer, a clinical social worker.
- The defendants asserted a psychotherapist-patient privilege, but the District Court judge rejected this argument and ordered disclosure.
- Redmond and Beyer refused to comply with the disclosure order.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that it could draw an adverse inference from the defendants' refusal to produce the notes.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding damages.
- The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, recognizing a qualified psychotherapist-patient privilege, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The plaintiff, petitioner here, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 501 permit federal courts to recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege, which would protect confidential communications between a police officer and her licensed clinical social worker from compelled disclosure in a federal civil rights action?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 501, guided by 'reason and experience,' compels the recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Effective psychotherapy depends on an atmosphere of confidence and trust, which would be undermined by the threat of disclosure. The privilege serves the significant public good of fostering the mental health of the citizenry, which outweighs the modest evidentiary benefit that would result from its denial. This conclusion is supported by the consensus among all 50 states, which have enacted some form of the privilege. The privilege extends to licensed social workers who provide psychotherapy, and it must be an absolute protection rather than a balancing test to be effective, as an uncertain privilege is 'little better than no privilege at all.'
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Court should not judicially create a new, vast, and ill-defined testimonial privilege that is in derogation of the fundamental principle of the search for truth. This new privilege is purchased at the price of occasional injustice, preventing parties from proving valid claims or defenses with reliable evidence. The fact that all 50 states have legislated on this issue argues against, not for, judicial creation, as it demonstrates the matter is better left to the flexibility of the legislative process. Furthermore, the significant variations in state laws show there is no true consensus on the privilege's scope, and extending it to social workers, whose training and roles are less defined than those of psychiatrists, is particularly irresponsible.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes a new federal evidentiary privilege under Rule 501, elevating the psychotherapist-patient relationship to the same protected level as attorney-client or spousal communications. The ruling's rejection of a case-by-case balancing test in favor of a more absolute privilege provides certainty for patients and therapists, significantly strengthening patient privacy. By extending the privilege to clinical social workers, the Court recognized the modern realities of mental healthcare delivery, ensuring protection for a broad range of individuals seeking therapy. This case will profoundly affect discovery in federal civil litigation, shielding mental health records and encouraging individuals in high-stress professions to seek treatment without fear of future disclosure in court.
