Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): extending [the] plaintiff every reasonable inference in his favor.” Coyne v. City of Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 442-43 (1st Cir.1992); see also Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., 194 F.3d 185, 200 (1st Cir.1999). Plaintiffs may not, however, rely upon “unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Murphy, 45 F.3d at 522 (citation omitted). IV. DISCUSSION A. Legislative Immunity Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against Speaker Finneran and President Birmingham (the “legislator defendants”) based on the legislators’ absolute immunity from legal claims for their legislative acts. “Absolute legislative immunity attaches to all actions taken in the sphere of legislative activity.” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>). As plaintiffs accuse the legislator 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights (B) holding that legislative immunity shields an official from liability if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity (C) holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity (D) holding that vulnerability to legislative alteration would seem to depend on the character of the compliance called for (E) holding that legislative immunity is not forfeited simply because the activities if unprotected might violate a plaintiffs first amendment rights
Output (English): holding that vulnerability to legislative alteration would seem to depend on the character of the compliance called for