Tenney v. Brandhove
341 U.S. 367 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability under the federal Civil Rights Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 43, 47(3)) for their conduct within the traditional sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
Facts:
- The California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, known as the Tenney Committee, was established by a state senate resolution.
- William Brandhove circulated a petition among members of the California Legislature to persuade them not to appropriate further funds for the Committee.
- Brandhove's petition accused the Tenney Committee and Elmer E. Robinson, a political opponent of Congressman Franck Havenner, of conspiring to use Brandhove to smear Havenner as a 'Red' during a mayoral campaign.
- In response to the petition, the Tenney Committee asked local prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings against Brandhove.
- The Committee summoned Brandhove to appear before them at a public hearing.
- At the hearing, Brandhove appeared with counsel but refused to testify.
- After his refusal, the Committee chairman read into the record statements about Brandhove's alleged criminal record and other materials intended to discredit Brandhove's charges against the committee.
Procedural Posture:
- William Brandhove filed a lawsuit against Jack B. Tenney and other members of a California legislative committee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking damages under the federal Civil Rights Act.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint.
- Brandhove, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, finding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action against the committee members (appellees), reversed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 create civil liability for state legislators for actions taken within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, such as conducting a committee hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not impose civil liability on state legislators for actions taken within the legitimate scope of their legislative duties. The principle of legislative immunity is a deeply rooted tradition in Anglo-American law, derived from the struggles of the English Parliament and incorporated into the U.S. Constitution and nearly every state constitution. Its purpose is to protect the public good by allowing legislators to discharge their duties freely and without fear of reprisal through litigation. The Court reasoned that Congress, in passing the general language of the Civil Rights Act, did not intend to subvert this fundamental and long-standing privilege. Brandhove's allegations of unworthy purpose are irrelevant, as judicial inquiry into legislative motive is improper. The Committee's investigation into Brandhove's petition was within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity because it concerned the integrity and work of a legislative body.
Concurring - Justice Black
No. The members of the Tenney Committee cannot be sued personally in this case, but this personal immunity does not validate the Committee's actions. While legislators are immune from suits for damages, their legislative actions are not immune from constitutional challenge. For example, if the Committee had tried to punish Brandhove for contempt, he could have defended himself by arguing that the Committee's actions or its authorizing resolution were unconstitutional. Justice Black expressed grave concern that the committee's authorizing resolution was overly broad and could be used as an instrument of oppression, similar to legislative abuses seen in other countries.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The Civil Rights Act should impose liability on legislators when their actions, even if under the guise of legislative activity, deprive a citizen of a constitutionally protected right. While legislative immunity protects speech and debate related to the legislative process, it should not shield legislators who pervert their power to function as a 'kangaroo court' and punish an individual for exercising his right to free speech. The very purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to provide a federal remedy against state officials who invade constitutional rights. No government official should be held to be above the Constitution, and the reason for immunity ends when a committee acts for an illegal or corrupt purpose to injure a citizen.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly establishes the principle of absolute legislative immunity for state legislators against federal civil rights claims. The ruling significantly insulates legislators from civil liability for actions taken within their official capacity, prioritizing the need for uninhibited legislative debate and action over individual remedies for alleged harms. By refusing to inquire into legislative motive, the Court placed a high barrier for plaintiffs seeking to hold legislators accountable, effectively channeling grievances toward the political process (e.g., voting) rather than the judicial system. This precedent solidifies the broad scope of legislative privilege and has been consistently applied to shield both federal and state lawmakers from suits related to their legislative functions.
Unlock the full brief for Tenney v. Brandhove