Opinion ID: 205792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Blagojevich's Claim of Legislative Immunity

Text: We begin with the question raised in Blagojevich's appeal: Does legislative immunity shield the former governor from this suit? The district court answered no and denied his motion to dismiss. A decision denying a claim of immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-25, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Whether Blagojevich is entitled to legislative immunity is a question of law that we review de novo. Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 566 (7th Cir.2008). The doctrine of legislative immunity is well-established by Supreme Court and circuit precedent; state and local officials are absolutely immune from federal suit for personal damages for their legitimate legislative activities. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 55, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 731-34, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980); Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 403-04, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 377, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951); Biblia Abierta v. Banks, 129 F.3d 899, 906 (7th Cir.1997); Thillens, Inc. v. Cmty. Currency Exch. Ass'n of Ill., Inc., 729 F.2d 1128, 1130-31 (7th Cir.1984). Sixty years ago the Supreme Court explained the contours of this common-law immunity in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. at 377, 71 S.Ct. 783. Tenney holds that state officials are absolutely immune from civil liability for activities undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Id. at 376-77, 71 S.Ct. 783 (Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good.). Tenney did not create a new strain of immunity doctrine; instead, the Court held that Congress in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the predecessor to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, had not abrogated preexisting common-law legislative immunity for state officials. Id. at 372, 71 S.Ct. 783; see also Lake Country Estates, 440 U.S. at 403, 99 S.Ct. 1171 (The immunity of legislators from civil suit for what they do or say as legislators has its roots in the parliamentary struggles of 16th- and 17th-century England; such immunity was consistently recognized in the common law and was taken as a matter of course by our Nation's founders.). Cases decided since Tenney have made clear that this immunity extends to all state and local officials, including those outside the legislative branch, for the performance of acts that are legislative in character or function. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 966 (extending legislative immunity to a mayor for signing an ordinance into law); Consumers Union, 446 U.S. at 731-34, 100 S.Ct. 1967 (extending legislative immunity to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought against judges for promulgating a code of professional responsibility); Lake Country Estates, 440 U.S. at 404-05, 99 S.Ct. 1171 (extending legislative immunity to members of an interstate planning commission for enacting a regional land-use ordinance). This functional approach to legislative immunity is consistent with the normal method for determining the availability and scope of common-law immunities. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) (Running through our cases, with fair consistency, is a `functional' approach to immunity questions other than those that have been decided by express constitutional or statutory enactment.); see also Rateree v. Rockett, 852 F.2d 946, 950 (7th Cir.1988) (noting functional approach to legislative immunity). Although the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed a legislative-immunity claim by a governor, there is no principled reason to think the established doctrine applies any differently to governors who are sued for their role in legislative activity. Our circuit has suggested, albeit in dicta, that governors are entitled to legislative immunity against claims for injunctive relief as well as damages suits when the conduct at issue relates to the legislative process. See Risser v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 549, 551 (7th Cir.1991) (When the governor of a state is exercising his veto power, he is acting in a legislative capacity, . . . and he is therefore entitled to absolute immunity. (citing Tenney and Consumers Union )). Other circuits have not hesitated to extend legislative immunity to governors for their legislative acts. See State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 91-92 (2d Cir.2007) (confirming availability of legislative immunity for governor, but denying it on the ground that additional discovery was necessary to determine whether the acts in question were legislative); Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 196-97 (3d Cir.2007) (absolute legislative immunity for governor advocating passage of legislation and signing bill into law); Torres Rivera v. Calderón Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 212-14 (1st Cir.2005) (governor entitled to legislative immunity for signing legislation); Women's Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir.2003) (same). Tenney also established that legislative immunity applies even when the official is accused of misconduct or other improper motive. 341 U.S. at 376-77, 71 S.Ct. 783 (The claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege.); see also Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54, 118 S.Ct. 966 (Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it.); Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 903. Accordingly, Tenney's use of the phrase legitimate legislative activity must be understood as a reference to the governmental sphere in which the official was operating, not the legality or propriety of his acts. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 376, 71 S.Ct. 783. Legislative immunity would have little value, the Court has explained, if forced to give way in the face of allegations of official misconduct. Id. at 377, 71 S.Ct. 783. Based on this principle, we have extended legislative immunity to state officials despite allegations of bribery and improper influence. See Thillens, 729 F.2d at 1130 (state legislators are entitled to legislative immunity in spite of bribery allegations). Even when the plaintiff's claim is directed primarily at illegal conduct by public officials, immunity attaches if the claim requires `proof of a legislative act or the motives or purposes underlying such an act.' Id. at 1131 (quoting Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 621, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972)); see also Chappell v. Robbins, 73 F.3d 918, 920, 925 (9th Cir. 1996) (defendant who admitted that he took bribes in exchange for legislation was protected by legislative immunity in civil RICO action). Under this long-standing doctrine, Blagojevich is entitled to immunity from this civil RICO suit. The allegations are that the former governor took bribes in exchange for influencing the state legislature to pass the Racing Acts and for signing the Acts into law. Or in the casinos' own formulation, Johnston bought and Blagojevich sold the Racing Acts. The casinos' claim cannot be made without reference to the former governor's role in securing the enactment of these Acts. See Chappell, 73 F.3d at 922; Thillens, 729 F.2d at 1131. The activity in questioninfluencing the state legislature to pass the bills and signing them into lawis unquestionably legislative in character. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 966 (signing a bill into law is a legislative function protected by immunity); Thillens, 729 F.2d at 1131 (influencing the legislative process is a legitimate legislative activity). Because the RICO claim broadly implicate[s] Blagojevich's role in the legislative process, he is protected by absolute legislative immunity. Thillens, 729 F.2d at 1131. The casinos weakly suggest that legislative immunity is somehow limited to § 1983 suits and does not apply to claims under RICO. This is a nonstarter. We held long ago that legislative immunity applies in a RICO suit. See id. at 1129 (holding that legislative immunity bars a civil RICO suit as well as claims under § 1983, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and various state-law torts). As we have already noted, Tenney did not create a new immunity applicable only to § 1983; rather, it held that Congress did not abrogate common-law legislative immunity when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 341 U.S. at 372-77, 71 S.Ct. 783. The Supreme Court has always defined legislative immunity broadly as absolute immunity from federal damages liability,  without reference to any specific cause of action. Lake Country Estates, 440 U.S. at 406, 99 S.Ct. 1171 (emphasis added). And like § 1983, there is nothing in RICO to demonstrate the clear legislative intent required to abrogate common-law immunity. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 529, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) (holding that clear legislative intent is required to abrogate common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity); see also Chappell, 73 F.3d at 923-24 (concluding that nothing in RICO's text or legislative history evinces an intent to abrogate common-law legislative immunity). These principles of federal law are so clear that the casinos focus most of their attention on a wholly different pointthat state immunity law applies. This is the argument that persuaded the district court. The casinos insist that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill.2d 286, 285 Ill.Dec. 165, 811 N.E.2d 652 (2004), which denied then-Governor Blagojevich legislative immunity under the Illinois Constitution, must control this case. Not so. It is blackletter law that [t]he elements of, and the defenses to, a federal cause of action are defined by federal law. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 375, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990); see also Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 647 n. 30, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (Municipal defensesincluding an assertion of sovereign immunityto a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.). Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressly rejected the position that a state constitution or other state law should have any effect on federal common-law legislative immunity. See Lake Country Estates, 440 U.S. at 404-05, 99 S.Ct. 1171 ([T]he absolute immunity for state legislators recognized in Tenney reflected the Court's interpretation of federal law; the decision did not depend on the presence of a speech or debate clause in the constitution of any State, or on any particular set of state rules or procedures available to discipline erring legislators.). There is good reason to preserve the content and scope of federal immunity doctrine from state encroachment. Were it otherwise, states could strip their officials of immunity in federal court or immunize them for federal constitutional or statutory violations, frustrating the operation and uniformity of federal law. Then-Judge Stevens made this point explicit in an opinion for this court more than thirty years ago: Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law. A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the Constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced. Hampton v. City of Chicago, 484 F.2d 602, 607 (7th Cir.1973). The suggestion that state immunity law displaces an otherwise valid claim of federal immunity is a bit odd, or at least unworkable; for the reasons noted in Hampton, the scope of a public official's immunity from suit on a federal claim in federal court is a matter of federal law. Moreover, some states have little or no developed jurisprudence in this area. Indeed, the law often runs in the opposite direction. State courts have imported federal common-law immunity doctrine into actions arising under state law. See, e.g., Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 823 (Tex.Ct.App.1997) (Because the jurisprudence of legislative immunity is not well developed in Texas, we will rely on federal authorities to assess the applicability of this form of immunity to the case before us.); see also Brown v. City of Bordentown, 348 N.J.Super. 143, 791 A.2d 1007, 1010 (2002) (adopting federal common-law legislative immunity in state-law action); Dublin v. State, 138 Ohio App.3d 753, 742 N.E.2d 232, 236-37 (2000) (looking to federal cases to define legislative immunity). We also reject application of Jorgensen on its own terms. Jorgensen did not involve a question of legislative immunity from a personal-damages suit. To the contrary, Jorgensen was a class-action suit filed by Illinois judges against Governor Blagojevich and the Illinois Comptroller in their official capacities seeking a declaration that the governor's use of his veto to block a judicial pay raise was unconstitutional. 285 Ill.Dec. 165, 811 N.E.2d at 654-59. In rejecting Blagojevich's claim of legislative immunity, the Illinois Supreme Court specifically explained that the judges were not trying to hold the governor personally liable, nor were they attempting to force him to take or to refrain from taking any particular action. Id., 285 Ill.Dec. 165, 811 N.E.2d at 666. There was nothing unusual about his inclusion as a party, the court said, because he was one of the state officials involved in the sequence of events that led to the judiciary's failure to receive a cost-of-living increase. Id. The rejection of immunity in a case like Jorgensen is unsurprising; state officials are obviously not shielded from all judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative acts. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 503, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (Legislative immunity does not, of course, bar all judicial review of legislative acts.). In short, the type of legislative immunity from personal-damages suits articulated in Tenney simply was not implicated in Jorgensen. Indeed, Jorgensen did not address common-law legislative immunity at all. Instead, the Illinois Supreme Court relied on Article IV of the Illinois ConstitutionIllinois' equivalent of the U.S. Constitution's Speech or Debate Clauseand § 107-7 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. 285 Ill.Dec. 165, 811 N.E.2d at 666. The state constitution's speech-and-debate provision is limited by its terms to members of the Illinois General Assembly and is plainly inapplicable to Blagojevich. Id. The same would be true of the U.S. Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, which applies only to legislators and their aides. See Gravel, 408 U.S. at 616-17, 92 S.Ct. 2614. But federal common-law legislative immunity is distinct from and broader than the federal constitution's Speech and Debate Clause. See United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 372 n. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980) (Despite the frequent invocation of the federal Speech or Debate Clause in Tenney, the Court has made clear that the holding was grounded on its interpretation of federal common law, not on the Speech or Debate Clause.). Recognizing this distinction, state courts, like federal courts, have not hesitated to extend common-law legislative immunity to executive officials, including governors. See, e.g., Humane Soc'y of N.Y. v. City of New York, 188 Misc.2d 735, 729 N.Y.S.2d 360, 363 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2001) (The Speech or Debate Clause applies by its terms only to `members' of the legislature. However, a similar common-law legislative privilege is applicable to government officials in the executive branch when engaged in legislative activities.); Mandel v. O'Hara, 320 Md. 103, 576 A.2d 766, 781 (1990) (governor entitled to common-law legislative immunity for legislative acts despite literal wording of state constitutional provision). For all these reasons, the casinosand the district court toohave simply misread Jorgensen. It is not at all clear that if presented with a proper claim of common-law legislative immunity, the Illinois Supreme Court would limit the immunity to members of the legislature. [6] Regardless, it is abundantly clear that for this federal claim in federal court, state legislative-immunity law has no effect; federal immunity doctrine applies. And under that doctrine Blagojevich is immune from this civil RICO action and must be dismissed from the suit. The RICO claim may proceed in his absence, however; Johnston, Balmoral, Maywood, and Friends of Blagojevich remain as defendants. [7]