Lefkowitz v. Turley
414 U.S. 70 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot compel a public contractor to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination by threatening the contractor with the loss of existing and future government contracts. Such a threat of substantial economic sanction is a form of coercion that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts:
- New York state had statutes requiring that all public contracts include a clause providing for contract cancellation and a five-year disqualification from future contracts if a contractor refused to waive immunity or testify before a grand jury about their contracts.
- Two licensed architects, the appellees, held contracts with the state of New York.
- The architects were summoned to testify before a grand jury that was investigating allegations of conspiracy, bribery, and larceny related to public contracts.
- During the grand jury proceedings, the architects were asked to sign waivers of immunity, which would have waived their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The architects refused to sign the waivers of immunity.
- Following their refusal, the District Attorney notified the relevant state contracting authorities, triggering the statutory penalties which threatened the architects' existing contracts and future contracting eligibility.
Procedural Posture:
- The architects (appellees) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
- The architects sought a judgment declaring the New York statutes unconstitutional.
- A three-judge panel was convened in the District Court to hear the case.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the architects, declaring the statutes unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The State of New York (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 New York state law that cancels existing public contracts and disqualifies contractors from future contracts for five years if they refuse to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when called to testify before a grand jury violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The New York statutes violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because they impose an unconstitutional penalty for the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment privilege protects a witness from being compelled to provide incriminating testimony in any official proceeding, including a grand jury investigation. The Court extended the reasoning of cases like Garrity v. New Jersey, which protected public employees from being fired for asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, to public contractors. The Court found no constitutionally significant difference between the threat of job loss for an employee and the threat of losing contracts for a contractor; both represent a substantial economic sanction used to coerce a waiver of a constitutional right. A waiver of immunity secured under such a threat cannot be considered voluntary. While the state has a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of its contracting process, it can achieve this by granting a witness use immunity and then compelling their testimony, rather than by coercing them to relinquish their constitutional rights entirely.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes. While joining the Court's opinion and conclusion, Justice Brennan wrote separately to reiterate his view that the Fifth Amendment requires more than the 'use and derivative use' immunity mentioned by the majority. In his view, to be constitutional, any compelled testimony must be accompanied by a grant of absolute 'transactional immunity,' which would protect the witness from any future prosecution for the transaction or matter about which they testified.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the protections of the Fifth Amendment by applying the principles established for public employees in Garrity v. New Jersey to independent public contractors. It solidifies the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, holding that the government cannot use its economic leverage—whether as an employer or a contracting party—to penalize an individual for exercising a fundamental constitutional right. The ruling makes clear that any attempt to coerce a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination through substantial economic threats is unconstitutional. It forces the government to use immunity grants, rather than economic penalties, as the primary tool for obtaining incriminating information from individuals it does business with.
Unlock the full brief for Lefkowitz v. Turley