[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10281

________________________

In re: MIKE HUBBARD, 

 DEL MARSH, 

 BOB RILEY, 

 Petitioners.

________________________

No. 13-10283

________________________

ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, 

an Alabama non-profit corporation,

A-VOTE, 

an Alabama political committee,

PAM HILL, 

JEFF BREECE, 

CHASSITY SMITH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

ASEA, et al.,

 Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

ROBERT BENTLEY, 

in his official capacity as Governor of 

the State of Alabama and President of

the State School Board, 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 of 35 
2

 Defendant-Appellant,

JOSEPH B. MORTON,

in his official capacity as Superintendent 

of Education, et al.,

 Defendants,

DEL MARSH,

MIKE HUBBARD,

BOB RILEY,

 Movants-Appellants.

________________________

No. 13-10382

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00761-CLS

In re: ROBERT BENTLEY, 

 Petitioner. 

________________________

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Appeals from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Alabama 

________________________

(October 14, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and MARRA,*

District Judge.

 * Honorable Kenneth A. Marra, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2 of 35 
3

ED CARNES, Chief Judge:

In February 2011, the Alabama Education Association (AEA), a publicsector union, and related parties filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging the 

constitutionality of Alabama Act No. 2010-761 (codified at Ala. Code § 17-17-5) 

(Act 761). Act 761 “prohibit[s] a state or local government employee from 

arranging by payroll deduction or otherwise the payment of any contribution to an 

organization that uses any portion of those contributions for political activity.”

Ala. Educ. Ass’n v. State Superintendent of Educ., 665 F.3d 1234, 1235 (11th Cir. 

2011) (AEA I) (quotation marks omitted). That prohibition alone, we have 

previously decided in another appeal involving this same lawsuit, is not a violation 

of the First Amendment. Id. at 1237; see Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 

U.S. 353, 355, 129 S. Ct. 1093, 1096 (2009). And we have also already decided 

that Act 761, as interpreted by the Alabama Supreme Court, is not 

unconstitutionally overbroad or impermissibly vague. Ala. Educ. Ass’n v. State 

Superintendent of Educ., 746 F.3d 1135, 1139–40 (11th Cir. 2014) (AEA II).

This appeal stems from another claim that AEA brought against Act 761, 

which is that it violates the First Amendment rights of AEA and its members 

because the subjective motivations of the lawmakers in passing the Act was to 

retaliate against AEA for its political speech on education policy. The specific 

issues before us arise from AEA’s pursuit of that claim through subpoenas seeking 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 35 
4

files of the Alabama Senate President Pro Tempore, the Speaker of the Alabama 

House of Representatives, the current Governor of Alabama, and the former 

governor. (For convenience, we will refer to those four collectively as “the four 

lawmakers” even though two of them are or were governors.) 

Before us now are the lawmakers’ petitions for writs of mandamus and their

appeals, all challenging the district court’s refusal to quash AEA’s subpoenas. We 

have two questions to answer: Do we have jurisdiction to hear the appeals? And, 

if so, did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to quash AEA’s 

subpoenas? Our answers are yes, and yes.

I. Background and Procedural History

For several decades Alabama law facilitated public-sector unions’ collection 

of membership dues by authorizing the use of government resources to deduct 

those dues from the paychecks of state and local government employees who 

permitted it. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 16-22-6(a); id. § 36-1-4.3. Under state law at 

the time there was no restriction on the purpose for which those withheld 

membership dues could be used by the unions. See id. 

That changed in the wake of the November 2010 election when the 

Republicans captured both houses of the Alabama legislature for the first time 

since Reconstruction. The next month outgoing Republican Governor Bob Riley 

called a special session of the newly elected legislature to consider an ethics reform 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 4 of 35 
5

package. That special session produced Act 761. See Ala. Code § 17-17-5. Act 

761 changed the State’s previous payroll deduction policies by prohibiting state 

and local public-sector employees from arranging, “by salary deduction or 

otherwise,” for: (1) payments of dues to a membership organization that “uses any 

portion of the dues for political activity,” or (2) payments to a political action 

committee.1

 Id. § 17-17-5(b)(1). As a result, public-sector unions like AEA were 

forced to choose between using state payroll deduction procedures to collect their 

membership dues and using their membership dues to fund political activity.

2

In an attempt to avoid having to make that choice, AEA filed its § 1983 

lawsuit before Act 761 went into effect, challenging the Act as unconstitutional on 

several grounds. The named plaintiffs are AEA, A-VOTE (the political action 

committee associated with AEA), and six AEA members. (For brevity’s sake, we 

are referring to them collectively as “AEA.”) 

 1 Subsection (b)(2) provides that the only way an organization can collect funds or dues from 

state or local public-sector employees is to certify that the payments will not be used for 

“political activity” and then submit evidence of its expenditures demonstrating that the payments 

were not used for “political activity.” Ala. Code § 17-17-5(b)(2). 

2 AEA represents “professional educators and education support personnel employed by the 

State of Alabama, the Department of Postsecondary Education (‘DPE’), Alabama four-year 

colleges and universities, postsecondary institutions (two-year colleges and trade and vocational 

training schools) that function under the supervision of the DPE, and local boards of education.” 

Ala. Educ. Ass’n v. Bentley, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1291 (N.D. Ala. 2011). That is why it had 

benefitted so much from the pre-Act 761 payroll deduction law and policies. See, e.g., Ala. 

Code § 16-22-6(a).

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 5 of 35 
6

The complaint asserted that Act 761 violated AEA’s constitutional rights to 

due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. It 

named as defendants several state government officials in charge of enforcing Act 

761, including current Governor Robert Bentley, the Alabama Comptroller, and the 

Alabama Finance Director. AEA sought a declaratory judgment that the Act was 

unconstitutional, an injunction barring implementation and enforcement of the Act,

as well as attorney’s fees and costs. 

The district court granted a preliminary injunction in March 2011 barring 

enforcement of Act 761. Ala. Educ. Ass’n v. Bentley, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1328 

(N.D. Ala. 2011). The court did so based on AEA’s claim that the Act was vague 

and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Id. at 1310–28. The 

defendants appealed, and a different panel of this Court (1) narrowed the scope of 

the injunction to permit enforcement of the Act in a manner consistent with the 

restriction on payroll deductions that was approved by the Supreme Court in 

Ysursa, and (2) certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama about the 

scope of Act 761. AEA I, 665 F.3d at 1237–39.

After the Supreme Court of Alabama answered the certified questions, see

Superintendent of Educ. v. Ala. Educ. Ass’n, 144 So. 3d 265, 278 (Ala. 2013), this 

Court held that Act 761 was neither overbroad nor void for vagueness, reversed the 

district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 6 of 35 
7

for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, AEA II, 746 F.3d at 1140. That 

opinion was issued in February 2014.

Meanwhile, back in April 2012, the district court had entered an order 

allowing AEA to proceed with discovery on the claims that were not the basis for 

the preliminary injunction and, as a result, were not involved in the pending 

appeal.3

 In June 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss all of those remaining 

claims. 

That same month, AEA served the subpoenas that led to these appeals. 

Those subpoenas went to, among others, Governor Bentley, former Governor Bob 

Riley, Alabama House of Representatives Speaker Mike Hubbard, and Alabama 

Senate Pro Tempore Del Marsh. The subpoenas sought production of six 

categories of documents relating to: the contents and passage of Act 761, any 

similar proposals to stop payroll deductions and collection of dues for employee 

organizations, as well as any communications regarding AEA and the other 

plaintiffs in the lawsuit.4

 The three who received subpoenas who were not 

 3 The district court concluded that it still had jurisdiction over those other claims because a 

notice of appeal does not divest a district court of jurisdiction over “collateral matters not 

affecting the questions presented on appeal,” and the other claims were “separate and distinct” 

from the vagueness and overbreadth claims that were at issue in the interlocutory appeal. See

Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 172 F.3d 771, 773 (11th Cir. 1999). 

4 The subpoenas requested the following six categories of documents:

(1) All documents explaining the requirements of Act 761, including any 

cover letters showing who sent such documents;

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 7 of 35 
8

defendants in the lawsuit — former Governor Riley, Representative Hubbard, and 

Senator Marsh — promptly filed motions to quash the subpoenas, claiming various 

governmental privileges, including their legislative privileges. The district court 

held those motions in abeyance and stayed discovery pending its ruling on the

defendants’ motions to dismiss. 

In August 2012, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss 

AEA’s claims that were based on equal protection, viewpoint discrimination, and 

unconstitutional condition theories. It also dismissed Governor Bentley as a party 

to the lawsuit after AEA conceded that he was not a proper defendant. 

 

(2) All drafts or proposals of any legislative bill, proposed rule, or proposed 

regulation to prohibit payroll deductions of dues or contributions to AEA 

or other organizations composed primarily of state or local government 

employees, or any political action committees associated with such 

organizations;

(3) All communications (including emails) sent or received that related to or 

concerned the bill that became Act 761 in the December 2010 special 

session;

(4) All documents and communications (including emails) from either 2009 

or 2010 that “related to or concerned” AEA, A-VOTE, the Alabama State 

Employees Association, SEA-PAC, Dr. Paul Hubbert, Dr. Joe Reed, or 

Edwin “Mac” McArthur;

(5) All documents and communications (including emails) received from the 

office of Governor Riley, the Comptroller, or the Finance Director that 

related to or concerned any proposal to stop payroll deductions that collect 

dues for membership organizations through payroll deductions; and

(6) All documents and communications (including emails) received from the 

office of Governor Riley, the Comptroller, or the Finance Director that 

related to or concerned any proposal to stop contributions to political 

organizations through payroll deductions.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 8 of 35 
9

Only one of AEA’s claims survived against the remaining defendants and it 

was one that was not explicitly stated in the complaint. The surviving claim 

asserted that Act 761 was an unconstitutional act of governmental retaliation 

against AEA for its past acts of political expression.5

 Under this retaliation theory, 

AEA claimed that Act 761 was an act of political retribution against AEA for its 

past opposition to education policy proposals by Governor Riley and other 

Alabama Republicans. The district court concluded that this was a viable enough 

claim to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage in light of our decision in 

Georgia Association of Educators v. Gwinnett County School District, 856 F.2d 

142, 144–45 (11th Cir. 1988). 

The Gwinnett County decision does not specify what plaintiffs must prove to 

establish that an elimination of automatic payroll deductions amounts to 

unconstitutional retaliation. See id. In its reasoning, the district court filled that 

gap by borrowing from two of our decisions involving retaliation claims brought 

by students against state educational institutions. See Castle v. Appalachian Tech. 

Coll., 631 F.3d 1194, 1197 (11th Cir. 2011) (outlining the elements of a First 

Amendment retaliation claim in assessing a nursing student’s claim that she was 

suspended for reporting one of her supervisors for falsifying attendance records); 

 5 There is no express retaliation claim in AEA’s complaint. The words “retaliation” and 

“motivation” do not appear anywhere in the complaint itself. AEA asserted the theory in the 

briefing on the motions to dismiss, pointing to factual allegations in the complaint that could 

arguably be read as supporting such a claim. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 9 of 35 
10

Keeton v. Anderson–Wiley, 664 F.3d 865, 877–78 (11th Cir. 2011) (doing the 

same in assessing a graduate student’s claim she was subjected to a “remediation 

plan” after she expressed her personal religious beliefs). The court concluded that 

AEA had to establish all of the following: (1) its speech was constitutionally 

protected; (2) the elimination of payroll deductions would likely deter persons of 

ordinary firmness from engaging in such speech; (3) there was a causal 

relationship between Act 761 and AEA’s past political expression; and (4) the 

lawmakers who passed Act 761 were “subjectively motivated” by AEA’s political 

expression. The defendants filed a motion asking the district court to certify an 

interlocutory appeal of the issue of whether the complaint did state a viable claim 

for relief on a First Amendment violation based on a retaliation theory, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b), but the district court declined to do so. 

In August 2012, Governor Bentley, who was no longer a party in the 

lawsuit, filed a motion to quash the subpoena directed to him. Like the other three 

lawmakers who had filed motions to quash, Governor Bentley asserted that various 

governmental privileges, including his legislative privilege, exempted him from 

having to respond the subpoena. 

In January 2013, the district court denied all four lawmakers’ motions to 

quash. The court’s order extensively discussed the various privileges asserted by 

the four lawmakers, but it based its ruling on what it believed to be the lawmakers’ 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 10 of 35 
11

failure to properly assert those privileges. The court relied on a Third Circuit 

decision to conclude that there were four requirements for invoking the privileges 

that the lawmakers had asserted. See United States v. O’Neill, 619 F.2d 222, 226 

(3d Cir. 1980). The court ruled that all of the lawmakers had failed to meet any of 

the four requirements for asserting any of the privileges they had asserted. It 

ordered each of them to “provide full and complete responses to the subpoenas” by 

February 1, 2013. 

The lawmakers then sought review by this Court, filing petitions for writs of 

mandamus, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We issued 

an order that: (1) consolidated into a single appeal all of the mandamus petitions 

and appeals, and (2) stayed the district court’s production order pending our 

decision. In the meantime, AEA has received documents the lawmakers do not 

contend are privileged but none of the documents that they contend are privileged. 

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

The lawmakers filed their appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants us 

“jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United 

States.” A “final decision” is usually a final judgment or similar order “by which a 

district court disassociates itself from a case.” Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 

514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995). The collateral order doctrine, 

however, recognizes “a small category of decisions that, although they do not end 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 11 of 35 
12

the litigation, must nonetheless be considered ‘final.’” Id. (quoting Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 1225–26 (1949)).

It is the law of this circuit that one who unsuccessfully asserts a 

governmental privilege may immediately appeal a discovery order where he is not 

a party to the lawsuit. Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 879 (5th 

Cir. Unit A March 5, 1981)6 (holding, in a case in which the government was not a 

party, that circuit precedent “extends the right of immediate appeal to the 

government even when it is itself in custody of the subpoenaed material”); Cates v. 

LTV Aerospace Corp., 480 F.2d 620, 622 (5th Cir. 1973) (“[D]iscovery orders 

may be appealable when an executive privilege is involved and the executive or 

governmental agency is not a party to the lawsuit.”); Carr v. Monroe Mfg. Co., 431 

F.2d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 1970) (“[D]iscovery orders may be appealable where a 

governmental privilege is asserted and the government is not a party to the suit.”). 

Our precedent is clear that government officials may appeal from the discovery 

order itself without waiting for contempt proceedings to be brought against them. 

See Branch, 638 F.2d at 878–79. 

The four lawmakers who have moved to quash the subpoenas are all present 

or former government officials whom the district court has ordered to produce 

 6 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted 

as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 

1981.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 12 of 35 
13

documents in spite of their assertion of various governmental privileges. None of 

the four lawmakers is a party to the lawsuit and neither are their agencies or the 

State of Alabama itself. Under our circuit precedent, they may immediately appeal 

the district court’s discovery order.

AEA argues that our precedent should be read as permitting “a pre-contempt 

appeal only where it is the government itself that claims the privilege.” That 

position cannot be squared with our Cates decision, which held that executive

officials — not just government entities — may immediately appeal a discovery 

order denying a claim of executive privilege. See Cates, 480 F.2d at 622 (holding 

that “discovery orders may be appealable when an executive privilege is involved 

and the executive or governmental agency is not a party to the lawsuit”). Since a

government official can immediately appeal the rejection of a claim of executive 

privilege without the government itself being a party, it would be inconsistent to 

hold that a government official cannot immediately appeal the rejection of a claim 

of legislative privilege unless the government is a party. No difference between 

executive and legislative privilege would justify that inconsistency. 

Recognizing the problem its position faces, AEA argues that our prior 

precedent permitting government officials to immediately appeal the denial of 

motions to quash based on assertions of governmental privilege has been overruled 

by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 13 of 35 
14

100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009).7 That decision held that “the collateral order doctrine 

does not extend to disclosure orders adverse to the attorney–client privilege.” Id.

at 114, 130 S. Ct. at 609. It said nothing about the kind of governmental privileges 

asserted here or any governmental privilege for that matter. Nor did it alter the 

scope of the collateral order doctrine. Mohawk is not the kind of “clearly on 

point” Supreme Court precedent that is required to overrule our prior panel 

precedent. See Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 344 F.3d 

1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Branch, 638 F.2d at 878–79 (holding that our 

decisions allowing government officials to seek immediate appeal of discovery 

orders were still viable after a Supreme Court decision holding that private 

individuals cannot seek immediate appeal from discovery orders compelling the 

production of documents). We must follow our precedent “unless and until it is 

overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by 

 7 AEA buttresses its argument by citing the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Ott v. City of 

Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 553–55 (7th Cir. 2012), which applied Mohawk and held that nonparty state agencies cannot immediately appeal a discovery order and instead must appeal from a 

contempt citation. We are obviously bound to follow our own precedent instead of Seventh 

Circuit case law. See OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947, 952 n.3 (11th Cir. 2002). And, in 

any event, Ott is distinguishable. It arose from an exonerated man’s § 1983 lawsuit bringing 

wrongful conviction and incarceration claims against several Milwaukee police officers and the 

City of Milwaukee. 682 F.3d at 554. The subpoenas at issue were served on the Wisconsin 

Crime Laboratory and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to obtain documents related to 

the DNA testing of the plaintiff. Id. The Seventh Circuit noted that there was “no risk of an 

unwarranted intrusion on state sovereignty” in requiring the state agencies to risk contempt 

citations because they “were acting as the agents of the City’s Police Department, and [the 

plaintiff’s] suit against the City and its officers [fell] comfortably within federal authority.” Id.

at 555. That is not what we have here. The four lawmakers never acted as the agents of the 

various state, county, and city officials named as defendants in AEA’s lawsuit. Nor does AEA’s 

lawsuit fall “comfortably within federal authority.” See infra Part III.B–C.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 14 of 35 
15

this court sitting en banc.” United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 

2008); United States v. Chubbuck, 252 F.3d 1300, 1305 n.7 (11th Cir. 2001) (“We 

are not at liberty to disregard binding case law that is so closely on point and has 

been only weakened, rather than directly overruled, by the Supreme Court.”) 

(quotation marks omitted); NLRB v. Datapoint Corp., 642 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir. 

Unit A April 8, 1981) (“Without a clearly contrary opinion of the Supreme Court 

or of this court sitting en banc, we cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel of 

this court . . . .”). Neither Cates, nor Branch, nor Carr has been overruled or 

undermined to the point of abrogation by a Supreme Court decision. 

For these reasons, we have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motions to 

quash the subpoenas.8

III. The Merits of the Appeals

Now for the merits of the appeals. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

45, a district court “must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . requires disclosure 

of privileged or other protected matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).9 The 

 8 The Supreme Court recognized in Mohawk that mandamus may lie to review a district 

court’s “disclosure order [that] amounts to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of 

discretion or otherwise works a manifest injustice.” 558 U.S. at 607, 130 S. Ct. at 111 (alteration 

omitted); see also id. at 608, 130 S. Ct. at 112. Given our holding that we have jurisdiction under 

§ 1291, we need not decide whether this is one of those extraordinary circumstances where 

mandamus would lie.

9 The district court ruled on the lawmakers’ motions to quash before the latest amendments to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1, 2013. The amendments did not 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 15 of 35 
16

federal courts have the authority and duty to recognize claims of privilege that are 

valid under federal common law. Fed. R. Evid. 501. To assert a privilege claim, a 

person “must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the 

withheld documents . . . in a manner that . . . will enable the parties to assess the 

claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A). We review a district court’s decision on 

whether to quash a subpoena only for an abuse of discretion. See Ariel v. Jones, 

693 F.2d 1058, 1060 (11th Cir. 1982). A ruling based on an error of law or one 

that reflects a clear error of judgment is an abuse of discretion. See FTC v. Nat’l 

Urological Grp., Inc., 785 F.3d 477, 481 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that a district 

court abuses its discretion when it “applies an incorrect legal standard, [or] applies 

the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner”) (quotation marks omitted);

Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005)

(“[W]e will leave undisturbed a district court’s ruling unless we find that the 

district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal 

standard.”); SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 

1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that committing a “clear error of judgment” 

or applying “an incorrect legal standard” is an abuse of discretion).

 

change the substance of any of the provisions from Rule 45 that apply here, only the numbering

of those provisions. To avoid confusion for future readers, we will use the post-2013 numbering.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 16 of 35 
17

While each of the four lawmakers asserted multiple privileges as grounds for 

quashing the AEA subpoena directed to him, we need address only the legislative 

privilege, which all of them raised. They argued that the only purpose of AEA’s 

subpoenas was to uncover evidence of their motivations for passing Act 761 and 

that the legislative privilege shields them from such inquiries. 

The legislative privilege is important. It has deep roots in federal common 

law. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372, 71 S. Ct. 783, 786 (1951) 

(recognizing “[t]he privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for 

what they do or say in legislative proceedings”); see also United States v. Gillock, 

445 U.S. 360, 372 n.10, 100 S. Ct. 1185, 1193 n.10 (1980) (noting that Tenney

“was grounded on its interpretation of federal common law”). The privilege 

protects the legislative process itself, and therefore covers both governors’ and 

legislators’ actions in the proposal, formulation, and passage of legislation. See

Tenney, 341 U.S. at 372, 376, 71 S. Ct. at 786, 788 (recognizing a legislative 

privilege for state legislators when acting “in the sphere of legitimate legislative 

activity”); Reeder v. Madigan, 780 F.3d 799, 800, 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming 

the legislative privilege of state representatives and senators); see also Women’s 

Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that 

Florida’s governor was protected by legislative immunity when signing a bill into 

law); Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 196–97 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that a 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 17 of 35 
18

governor falls within the sphere of legislative activity when “advocating and 

promoting legislation”). And it does not matter to the existence of the legislative 

privilege that the four lawmakers were not parties to AEA’s lawsuit. The privilege 

“applies whether or not the legislators themselves have been sued.” EEOC v. 

Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 631 F.3d 174, 181 (4th Cir. 2011); see

MINPECO, S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 844 F.2d 856, 859 (D.C. Cir. 

1988).

The district court did not rule that a validly asserted legislative privilege 

would not provide a defense against the production of subpoenaed documents. 

Instead, the court ruled that the lawmakers had forfeited their privileges, including 

their legislative privileges, by failing to properly assert them. In reaching that 

ruling, the district court relied heavily on a Third Circuit decision that imposed 

four requirements for assertion of claims of governmental privilege. See United 

States v. O’Neill, 619 F.2d 222, 226 (3d Cir. 1980). According to that decision, 

those four requirements are: (1) the government official invoking the privilege 

“must personally review the material,” (2) the official must provide “a specific 

designation and description of the documents claimed to be privileged,” (3) the 

official must provide “precise and certain reasons for preserving” the 

confidentiality of the documents, and (4) the claim usually “must be raised by 

affidavit.” See id. at 226 (quotation marks omitted). The district court concluded 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 18 of 35 
19

that, because the four lawmakers had not met any of the four requirements 

announced in that Third Circuit decision, they had failed to properly assert their

legislative privileges against AEA’s subpoenas and had thereby lost the right to 

assert them. 

That was an error of law, and therefore an abuse of discretion, because none 

of those four requirements provides a proper basis for denying the kind of

legislative privilege claims raised in the circumstances that exist in this case. See

Nat’l Urological Grp., 785 F.3d at 481. Two of the requirements are contrary to 

this circuit’s precedent, and the other two are inappropriate given the 

circumstances.

A.

Denying the lawmakers’ legislative privilege claims based on the first and 

fourth prerequisites — that the lawmakers personally review the documents and 

raise their claims by affidavit — violates this Court’s precedent. The Branch

decision expressly held that such formal technicalities are not a proper basis for 

denying an otherwise proper claim of governmental privilege if the grounds for 

assertion of the privilege are adequately presented to the district court, 638 F.2d at 

882–83, as they were here. 

In Branch a Title VII defendant subpoenaed documents from the EEOC’s 

Houston district office, and the director of that office refused to produce them on 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 19 of 35 
20

the ground that they were protected by an “‘executive’ or ‘official information’ 

privilege.” Id. at 876–77, 879. In the appeal from the district court’s order 

compelling production of the documents, the defendant company argued that the 

EEOC “ha[d] not properly invoked the privilege.” Id. at 882. Its position relied on 

the Supreme Court’s statement in United States v. Reynolds that, in order to 

properly invoke a governmental privilege, “‘[t]here must be a formal claim of 

privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, 

after actual personal consideration [by] that officer.’” Branch, 638 F.2d at 882 

(quoting Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7–8, 73 S. Ct. 528, 532 (1953)).

The Branch court explained that the purpose of such procedural prerequisites 

is simply “to insure that subordinate officials do not lightly or mistakenly invoke 

the government’s privilege in circumstances not warranting its application,” and it 

held that so long as there is “sufficient compliance” to satisfy that goal, the 

privilege should be honored. Id. at 882–83. In Branch, it was enough that the 

director of the Houston office: (1) consulted with the office of the General 

Counsel at the EEOC, and (2) “made the [EEOC’s] objections to disclosure and its 

basis for them known to the court in written responses to questions accompanying 

the subpoena itself.” Id. at 883.

Here, the four lawmakers’ motions to quash were sufficiently compliant with 

Reynolds to invoke the legislative privilege. They are, after all, the Governor of 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 20 of 35 
21

Alabama, the former governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Alabama Senate, 

and the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives. None of them are 

“subordinate officials.” See Branch, 638 F.2d at 882. They each unquestionably 

hold their own legislative privilege. See Reeder, 780 F.3d at 805; Women’s 

Emergency Network, 323 F.3d at 950; Baraka, 481 F.3d at 196–97. The four 

invoked their privileges through their counsel, just as the EEOC had invoked its 

privilege through the director of its Houston office. See Branch, 638 F.2d at 883. 

And the lawmakers’ counsel made their privilege claims known through written 

motions to quash, which are akin to the written responses in Branch. See id. No 

affidavits or confirmations that the lawmakers had personally reviewed the 

documents were required.

By overlooking the Branch decision, which is binding precedent, and instead 

following the Third Circuit’s O’Neill decision, which is not, the district court 

inadvertently transgressed the fundamental rule that courts of this circuit are bound 

by the precedent of this circuit. See Generali v. D’Amico, 766 F.2d 485, 489 (11th 

Cir. 1985). 

B.

Denying the lawmakers’ legislative privilege claims based on the other two 

requirements — that the privileged documents be specifically designated and 

described, and that precise and certain reasons for preserving confidentiality be 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 21 of 35 
22

given — was also an error of law. Rule 45 requires only enough description and 

precision to “enable the parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(e)(2)(A)(ii). Given the purpose of the legislative privilege, the nature of AEA’s 

only remaining legal claim, and the sole purpose of the subpoena in light of that 

claim, there was more than enough under Rule 45 to assess the claim of privilege 

and to compel the granting of the motions to quash.

10

The legislative privilege “protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the 

regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts.” 

United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525, 92 S. Ct. 2531, 2544 (1972)

(emphasis added);

11

see Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377, 71 S. Ct. at 788 (declaring “that 

it [i]s not consonant with our scheme of government for a court to inquire into the 

motives of legislators”). One of the privilege’s principle purposes is to ensure that 

lawmakers are allowed to “focus on their public duties.” Wash. Suburban Sanitary 

 10 This case is materially distinguishable from the one that produced the Third Circuit’s 

O’Neill decision. The privilege at issue in that case was a vaguely asserted “qualified executive 

or governmental privilege,” not a legislative privilege. See O’Neill, 619 F.2d at 228. And the 

disputed subpoenas were meant to provide evidence for an investigation by the United States 

Commission on Civil Rights into allegations of police brutality by the city’s police officers. See

id. at 224–25. An official federal investigation into potential abuses of federal civil rights is a far 

cry from a private lawsuit attacking a facially valid state statute by attempting to discover the 

subjective motivations of some of the legislative leaders and the governor who supported it.

11 Though Brewster involved a former United States Senator’s claim of legislative privilege 

under the Speech or Debate Clause, see 408 U.S. at 502, 507–08, 92 S. Ct. at 2532, 2535, it is 

well-established that state lawmakers possess a legislative privilege that is “similar in origin and 

rationale to that accorded Congressmen under the Speech or Debate Clause,” Supreme Court of 

Va. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 732, 100 S. Ct. 1967, 1974 (1980).

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 22 of 35 
23

Comm’n, 631 F.3d at 181; cf. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 

503, 95 S. Ct. 1813, 1821 (1975) (explaining that the Speech or Debate Clause 

ensures that civil litigation will not “create[] a distraction and force[] Members to 

divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the 

litigation”). That is why the privilege extends to discovery requests, even when the 

lawmaker is not a named party in the suit: complying with such requests detracts 

from the performance of official duties. See Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 

631 F.3d at 181; MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 859 (“A litigant does not have to name 

members or their staffs as parties to a suit in order to distract them from their 

legislative work. Discovery procedures can prove just as intrusive.”). The 

privilege applies with full force against requests for information about the motives 

for legislative votes and legislative enactments. 

And –– this is important –– that was the only purpose left for the subpoenas 

when the district court denied the motion to quash. Their sole reason for existing 

was to probe the subjective motivation of the legislators who supported Act 761. 

All of AEA’s claims had been dismissed, except the retaliation claim. See supra

Part I. The core of a First Amendment retaliation claim, its factual heart, is the 

subjective motivation to retaliate. See supra Part I (describing how the district 

court’s order required the plaintiffs to establish that the lawmakers who passed Act 

761 were “subjectively motivated” by political retribution); see also Walker v. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 23 of 35 
24

Schwalbe, 112 F.3d 1127, 1133 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[t]he 

government official’s state of mind” is an essential element of a First Amendment 

retaliation claim). So at the time the district court ruled on the motions to quash, 

AEA’s lawsuit was by definition an “inquiry into acts that occur in the regular 

course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts.” See

Brewster, 408 U.S. at 525, 92 S. Ct at 2544 (emphasis added). The subpoenas’ 

only purpose was to support the lawsuit’s inquiry into the motivation behind Act 

761, an inquiry that strikes at the heart of the legislative privilege. See id.; see also

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 416 (D.C. Cir. 

1995) (explaining that the privilege applies “when the action complained of falls 

within the legislative sphere”). 

To put it another way, the factual heart of the retaliation claim and the scope 

of the legislative privilege were one and the same: the subjective motivation of 

those acting in a legislative capacity. Any material, documents, or information that 

did not go to legislative motive was irrelevant to the retaliation claim, while any 

that did go to legislative motive was covered by the legislative privilege. That was 

not the case in the Third Circuit’s O’Neill decision. See supra note 10. Some of 

the relevant information sought by the subpoenas in the O’Neill case could have 

been outside of any asserted privilege. None of the relevant information sought in 

this case could have been outside of the legislative privilege.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 24 of 35 
25

Because the only remaining claim in AEA’s lawsuit struck at the heart of the 

legislative privilege, and none of the information sought could have been outside 

the privilege, there was no need for the lawmakers to peruse the subpoenaed 

documents, to specifically designate and describe which documents were covered 

by the legislative privilege, or to explain why the privilege applied to those 

documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring only that the privilege 

claim contain enough detail to “enable the parties to assess the claim”). It was 

enough to point out, as the lawmakers did, that the only purpose of the subpoenas 

was to further AEA’s inquiry into the lawmakers’ motivations for Act 761 and that 

their legislative privileges exempted them from such inquiries. Cf. Brown & 

Willamson Tobacco Corp., 62 F.3d at 419 (explaining that, in cases where 

nonparty lawmakers moved to quash subpoenas based on legislative privilege, “the 

only question was whether the subpoenas inquired into legislative conduct”). To 

insist on unnecessary detail and procedures, as the district court did, would 

undermine a primary purpose of the legislative privilege — shielding lawmakers 

from the distraction created by inquiries into the regular course of the legislative 

process. See Brewster, 408 U.S. at 525, 92 S. Ct. at 2544; Wash. Suburban 

Sanitary Comm’n, 631 F.3d at 181; MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 859. Given the 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 25 of 35 
26

circumstances here, the lawmakers’ motions to quash were sufficient to invoke 

their legislative privileges.

12

We need not decide in this case whether a document-by-document 

invocation of the legislative privilege would be required in a different case, one 

where the documents are requested to support a claim that is not at its core and in 

its entirety an inquiry into the subjective motivation that lawmakers had in passing 

legislation.

C.

AEA argues that, even if the four lawmakers did properly assert their 

legislative privileges here, and even if those privileges would otherwise apply, they

must yield to AEA’s interest in vindicating its First Amendment rights. To be 

sure, a state lawmaker’s legislative privilege must yield in some circumstances 

where necessary to vindicate important federal interests such as “the enforcement 

of federal criminal statutes.” Gillock, 445 U.S. at 373, 100 S. Ct. at 1193. But the 

Supreme Court has explained that, for purposes of the legislative privilege, there is 

a fundamental difference between civil actions by private plaintiffs and criminal 

 12 What we have said in this Part applies as well to the district court’s ruling that the 

lawmakers were required to personally review the documents and raise their privilege claims by 

affidavit. See supra Part III.A. Lawmakers do not need to personally review any documents or 

sign affidavits to “enable the parties to assess the claim[s],” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A)(ii), 

where the subpoena necessarily trenches upon the interests protected by the legislative privilege. 

The nature of AEA’s sole remaining claim defines the purpose of the subpoenas, which in turn 

answers the question of whether the privilege applies. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 26 of 35 
27

prosecutions by the federal government. See id. at 372–73, 100 S. Ct. at 1193

(“[I]n protecting the independence of state legislators, Tenney and subsequent 

cases on official immunity have drawn the line at civil actions.”). This is not a 

federal criminal investigation or prosecution. 

AEA’s subpoenas do not serve an important federal interest. Don’t 

misunderstand us. We are not saying that enforcing the First Amendment is not an 

important federal interest or that it does not protect important constitutional values. 

Obviously it is and does. What we are saying is that, as a matter of law, the First 

Amendment does not support the kind of claim AEA makes here: a challenge to 

an otherwise constitutional statute based on the subjective motivations of the 

lawmakers who passed it.

13 And because the specific claim asserted does not 

legitimately further an important federal interest in this context, the legislative 

privileges must be honored and the subpoenas quashed.

1.

In United States v. O’Brien, the Supreme Court held that, as a “principle of 

constitutional law,” courts cannot “strike down an otherwise constitutional statute 

on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” 391 U.S. 367, 383, 88 S. Ct. 

1673, 1682 (1968). The plaintiff in O’Brien had challenged a congressional statute 

 13 Our decision should not be read as deciding whether, and to what extent, the legislative 

privilege would apply to a subpoena in a private civil action based on a different kind of 

constitutional claim than the one AEA made here. We address only the issues that are before us.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 27 of 35 
28

on free-speech grounds by citing from the legislative history statements of three 

Congressmen and then using those statements to argue that “the ‘purpose’ of 

Congress” in passing the statute “was ‘to suppress freedom of speech.’” See id. at 

382–83, 385–86, 88 S. Ct. at 1682, 1683–84. The Supreme Court rejected the 

challenge outright, citing the “fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication” 

that courts may not “void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional 

on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about 

it.”14 Id. at 383–84, 88 S. Ct. at 1682–83. See also Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 

423, 455, 51 S. Ct. 522, 526 (1931) (“Into the motives which induced members of 

Congress to enact the [statute], this court may not inquire.”).

This Court’s precedent applying O’Brien recognizes that, when a statute is 

facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming 

that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible 

purpose. We have held that many times. See, e.g., Artistic Entm’t, Inc. v. City of 

Warner Robins, 223 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that, in a freespeech challenge to a city ordinance, courts “will ‘not strike down an otherwise 

constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged legislative illicit motive.’”) 

 14 O’Brien acknowledged that there are limitations to this rule. See 391 U.S. at 383 n.30, 88 

S. Ct. at 1682 n.30 (noting that “an inquiry into the legislative purpose” is permissible where a 

law is challenged as a bill of attainder, as an ex post facto law, or on another ground that requires 

the court to determine whether the challenged statute is “penal in nature”). Our discussion of the 

O’Brien rule is limited to the context before us: a free-speech retaliation challenge to an 

otherwise constitutional statute.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 28 of 35 
29

(quoting O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 383, 88 S. Ct. at 1682); Int’l Food & Beverage Sys. 

v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 794 F.2d 1520, 1525 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining, 

while rejecting a free-speech challenge to a city ordinance, that “United States v. 

O’Brien teaches against striking down otherwise constitutional legislation on the 

basis of a speculated illicit legislative motive.”) (citation omitted).

The O’Brien rule applies here because Act 761 does not, on its face, impinge 

on any constitutional rights. As this Court has already held, Act 761 “only 

declines to promote speech, rather than abridging it,” and therefore “does not 

implicate any constitutionally protected conduct.” AEA II, 746 F.3d at 1139. So 

the statute is facially constitutional. The only basis for AEA’s retaliation claim is 

the alleged retaliatory motive that Alabama’s lawmakers had when passing Act 

761. See supra Part I. That is precisely the challenge that O’Brien, and our 

decisions following it, foreclose. See 391 U.S. at 382–86, 88 S. Ct. at 1682–84.

We are not the first circuit to address whether O’Brien applies in this 

context. Every other circuit that has addressed the issue has also held that O’Brien

bars First Amendment retaliation claims against legislation eliminating statesponsored collection of union dues through payroll deductions. See Bailey v. 

Callaghan, 715 F.3d 956, 960 (6th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a teachers union’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim challenging Michigan’s elimination of statesponsored collection of union dues through payroll deductions); Wis. Educ. Ass’n 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 29 of 35 
30

Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 649–53 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting the First 

Amendment retaliation claim by several public-sector unions against Wisconsin’s 

elimination of its state-sponsored collection of union dues through payroll 

deductions); S.C. Educ. Ass’n v. Campbell, 883 F.2d 1251, 1257–59 (4th Cir. 

1989) (rejecting a teachers union’s First Amendment retaliation claim challenging 

South Carolina’s elimination of its state-sponsored collection of union dues 

through payroll deductions). Another circuit has held that O’Brien bars similar 

retaliation claims against facially constitutional statutes generally. See Planned 

Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri v. Moser, 747 F.3d 814, 820, 840–41 (10th 

Cir. 2014) (rejecting a local Planned Parenthood chapter’s retaliation claim 

challenging Kansas’ elimination of healthcare appropriations that are not for public 

entities or nonpublic hospitals). We agree with the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

Tenth Circuits. And, of course, we are bound to follow O’Brien itself. 

Because AEA has not presented a cognizable First Amendment claim, there

is no “important federal interest[] at stake” in this case to justify intruding upon the 

lawmakers’ legislative privileges. See Gillock, 445 U.S. at 373. The lawmakers’ 

motions to quash are therefore due to be granted.

2.

The only decision AEA cites to support its position that a First Amendment 

retaliation claim will support an inquiry into the subjective motives of the 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 30 of 35 
31

legislators who supported enactment of a facially constitutional law is our own 

Gwinnett County decision. See 856 F.2d at 144–45. And in denying the motion to 

dismiss this claim, the district court was convinced that the question of whether the 

First Amendment supports a retaliation claim against an otherwise constitutional

statute is “controlled by the binding precedent of the Eleventh Circuit in the 

Gwinnett County case.” That district court ruling itself is not directly before us in 

this appeal because the court denied the defendants’ 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) motion 

for certification of the ruling, which would have permitted an interlocutory appeal. 

See supra Part I. 

But, then again, the same issue the district court ruled on in denying the 

motion to dismiss the claim is indirectly before us because it bears directly on the 

question of whether there is a strong federal interest that would be impeded by 

applying the legislative privilege to block the subpoenas. See Gillock, 445 U.S. at 

373, 100 S. Ct. at 1193 (explaining that a court must determine whether there is an 

important federal interest at stake in deciding whether the legislative privilege 

should be applied). If the O’Brien rule forecloses AEA’s First Amendment 

retaliation claim, then there is no strong federal interest that outweighs the interests 

behind the legislative privilege. If, on the other hand, Gwinnett County establishes 

the legal legitimacy of the claim, the question is a different one. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 31 of 35 
32

What our decision in Gwinnett County means, and whether it is 

distinguishable, is a question of law that we decide de novo. See Locke v. Shore, 

634 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2011). It is distinguishable. The facts of that case 

limit the holding of the decision to acts of governmental retaliation that explicitly 

single out a specific group. In that case, a school board adopted its 

superintendent’s recommendation to terminate the automatic payroll deduction of 

membership dues for members of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) and 

its local affiliate, the Gwinnett County Association of Educators (GCAE). 856 

F.2d at 143–44. The recommendation came after the superintendent clashed with 

the GCAE over its representation of school system employees before the board and 

its affiliation with the National Education Association. Id. at 144 & n.1. The 

board members admitted that they had terminated the payroll dues deduction 

services for those reasons. Id. at 144. This Court held that — despite the fact that 

the teachers union had no constitutional right to automatic payroll deduction of 

membership dues — the county board of education could not deny the union’s 

members the benefit of that service as a “sanction[] for the expression of particular 

views it opposes.” Id. at 145 (quotation marks omitted).

The crucial fact in Gwinnett County is that the school board did not adopt a 

generally applicable policy — it specifically singled out “GAE-GCAE members.” 

856 F.2d 144 (“[T]he superintendent recommended that the Board terminate the 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 32 of 35 
33

dues deduction service for GAE-GCAE members, and the Board voted 4-1 to 

accept the recommendation.”) (footnote omitted). That fact made O’Brien

inapplicable because the O’Brien rule applies only where the law at issue is 

“constitutional on its face.” 391 U.S. at 384, 88 S. Ct. at 1683. The holding of 

Gwinnett County therefore does not implicate the O’Brien rule, nor does it extend 

to cases involving generally applicable laws — such as Act 761 — because 

“judicial decisions cannot make law beyond the facts of the cases in which those 

decisions are announced.” Watts v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 316 F.3d 1203, 

1207 (11th Cir. 2003); Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298 (11th Cir. 

2010) (“[R]egardless of what a court says in its opinion, the decision can hold 

nothing beyond the facts of that case.”); United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 

1321 (11th Cir. 2000) (“The holdings of a prior decision can reach only as far as 

the facts and circumstances presented to the Court in the case which produced that 

decision.”) (quotation marks omitted).15 For these reasons, the O’Brien rule 

applies here, which means that AEA has no valid federal claim to justify intruding 

upon the lawmakers’ legislative privileges.

 15 To interpret Gwinnett County as applying to generally applicable acts would throw it into 

conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Brien. Courts of appeal cannot, of course, 

overrule the Supreme Court. We have an obligation to construe our prior decisions to be 

consistent with Supreme Court precedent where possible. 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 33 of 35 
34

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of the four 

lawmakers’ motions to quash. On remand, the motions to quash must be granted. 

And all remaining proceedings are to be conducted consistently with this opinion. 

Because we have resolved this appeal through the lawmakers’ appeals under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss the petitions for writs of mandamus as moot.

In closing, we note that the district court on remand is not bound to adhere to 

its earlier order denying the lawmakers’ motion to dismiss AEA’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim. The court may revisit its order refusing to dismiss 

the retaliation claim because it has the authority to revisit any of its orders so long 

as final judgment has not yet been entered. See Culpepper v. Irwin Mortg. Corp., 

491 F.3d 1260, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the law-of-the-case 

doctrine did not require the district court to adhere to an earlier ruling because, in 

light of a later circuit decision, the earlier ruling was “clearly erroneous” and 

following it “would work manifest injustice”) (quotation marks omitted); Murphy 

v. FDIC, 208 F.3d 959, 966 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the law-of-the-case 

doctrine “does not . . . require rigid adherence to rulings made at an earlier stage of 

a case in all circumstances”); United States v. Williams, 728 F.2d 1402, 1406 (11th 

Cir. 1984) (“[A] court’s previous rulings may be reconsidered as long as the case 

remains within the jurisdiction of the district court.”); Robinson v. Parrish, 720 

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 34 of 35 
35

F.2d 1548, 1549–50 (11th Cir. 1983) (explaining that, under the law-of-the-case 

doctrine, a district court is not obligated to “rigidly adhere to its own rulings in an 

earlier stage of a case”). It may wish to do so in light of what we have said about 

the crucial distinction between Gwinnett County and this case and in light of our 

discussion in Part III.C. of this opinion.

The order denying the motions to quash the subpoenas is REVERSED, the 

petitions for writs of mandamus are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and the case is 

REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

Case: 13-10281 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 35 of 35