Scott Reeder v. Michael Madigan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
780 F.3d 799 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The decision to grant or deny media credentials based on rules designed to protect the integrity of the legislative process is a core legislative activity, entitling state legislators and their aides to absolute immunity from suit.

Facts:

Scott Reeder worked as a journalist for the Illinois News Network (INN), a part of the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI).
In early 2013, Reeder applied for media credentials that would grant him access to the press boxes on the floors of the Illinois House and Senate.
Rikeesha Phelon, press secretary for the Senate President, denied Reeder's request in March 2013 because IPI was a registered lobbying entity, and Senate rules prohibit lobbyists from the floor.
Steve Brown, press secretary for the House Speaker, communicated a similar denial.
In January 2014, Reeder reapplied for credentials, asserting that IPI was no longer a registered lobbyist.
The Senate denied the request again, stating its belief that IPI was still required to register as a lobbyist because it retained a lobbying firm that shared its staff and office space.
The House issued a similar denial the following month, citing its own rules and the Lobbyist Registration Act.

Procedural Posture:

Scott Reeder and the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court against Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, and their press secretaries.
The complaint alleged that the denial of media credentials violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting they were protected by absolute legislative immunity.
The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the denial of credentials was a legislative activity protected by immunity.
Reeder and IPI, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do state legislators and their aides have absolute legislative immunity from a lawsuit challenging their decision to deny a journalist press credentials based on legislative rules prohibiting lobbyists from the chamber floor?

Opinions:

Majority - Wood, Chief Judge.

Yes. State legislators and their aides are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for this action because the decision is an integral part of the legislative process. Legislative immunity, derived from the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, extends beyond literal speech to encompass all 'legitimate legislative activity.' The court employs a functional analysis, concluding that controlling access to the legislative floor to prevent interference from lobbyists is an integral part of the deliberative process. The rules denying access to lobbyists are designed to avoid the impairment of deliberations, making their enforcement a core legislative function, not a mere administrative act. This immunity also extends to legislative aides, such as the press secretaries, because their work is critical to the legislators' performance, rendering them 'alter egos' for immunity purposes, as established in Gravel v. United States.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the broad scope of legislative immunity, extending its protection beyond traditional lawmaking acts like voting and debating to include the management of the physical legislative environment. It establishes that controlling floor access to insulate the deliberative process from lobbying influence is a protected legislative function. This ruling creates a high bar for challenging legislative access rules in court, even on First Amendment grounds, as long as the decision is functionally tied to protecting the core legislative process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Scott Reeder v. Michael Madigan (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"