Lefkowitz v. Cunningham
53 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 19, 431 U.S. 801 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state violates the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compelled self-incrimination when it enacts a law that automatically removes a political party officer from their position and bars them from future office for exercising their right to refuse to waive immunity before a grand jury.
Facts:
- Patrick J. Cunningham held four unsalaried, elective positions within the Democratic Party of the State of New York.
- A special grand jury was convened to investigate Cunningham's conduct in these political offices.
- In December 1975, Cunningham was subpoenaed to appear and testify before the grand jury.
- On April 12, 1976, Cunningham appeared before the grand jury but refused to sign a waiver of immunity form, thereby asserting his constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
- Under Section 22 of the New York Election Law, this refusal automatically and immediately terminated his party offices.
- The same law also barred Cunningham from holding any other party or public office for a period of five years.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick J. Cunningham moved to quash his grand jury subpoena in New York state court, arguing § 22 was unconstitutional; his motion was denied by the state trial and appellate courts.
- After refusing to waive immunity, Cunningham commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Judge entered a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of § 22.
- A three-judge District Court was convened and granted Cunningham permanent injunctive relief, ruling that § 22 violated the Constitution.
- The State of New York appealed the District Court's decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 a state law that automatically removes a political party officer from their position and bars them from holding any office for five years, solely because they refused to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury, violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A state cannot penalize an individual for asserting their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by imposing sanctions designed to compel testimony that has not been immunized. The Court reasoned that the threatened loss of prestigious and influential political offices, coupled with a five-year ban on holding any public or party office, constitutes a potent sanction and a form of coercion forbidden by the Fifth Amendment. This penalty is constitutionally indistinguishable from the economic sanctions struck down in prior cases like Gardner v. Broderick and Lefkowitz v. Turley. The law unconstitutionally forces an individual to forfeit their Fifth Amendment right as the price for exercising their First Amendment right to political association.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The state law unconstitutionally penalizes the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege. While agreeing with the judgment and the core reasoning of the majority, this opinion disagrees with the majority's suggestion in Part 4 that granting use immunity would be a sufficient remedy for the state. This concurrence reiterates the view that the Fifth Amendment requires the government to grant absolute transactional immunity—protection from any prosecution related to the compelled testimony—not just the lesser protection of use immunity.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stevens
No. The state law does not violate the Constitution. The dissent argued that while the Fifth Amendment protects the right to remain silent, it does not guarantee a right to hold a sensitive, policymaking public office. A distinction should be made between ordinary government employees and high-level officials like Cunningham, in whom the public must have confidence. The state has a legitimate interest in the integrity of its leadership, and an official's refusal to account for their conduct by invoking the privilege can be a valid basis for removal, as it erodes the public trust essential to the position.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the protections against compelled waiver of Fifth Amendment rights, previously applied to public employees and government contractors, to officers of private political parties. It solidifies the principle that the touchstone of a Fifth Amendment violation is compulsion, which can take many forms beyond direct economic sanctions or imprisonment. By recognizing the loss of influential but unsalaried positions as a coercive penalty, the Court broadened the scope of what constitutes an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of the privilege. This ruling forces states to grant at least use immunity if they wish to compel testimony from individuals in positions of public trust, rather than simply removing them from office for their silence.
