Opinion ID: 201642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Individual Defendants for Damages

Text: 25 By contrast with the claim for injunctive or declaratory relief as to the constitutionality of the statute, the claims against the individual defendants for damages are subject to the doctrines of legislative and qualified immunity.
26 A state legislature (and for these purposes Puerto Rico is treated as a state) enjoys common law immunity for its legislative acts, an immunity similar to that accorded members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause. Supreme Court v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 732, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980). The question we are faced with here is extension of this doctrine to the executive who signs legislation, thus making it law. 8 27 Although no legislators are named as defendants, the plaintiffs bring a claim against Governor Calderon for having signed Law 94. The Supreme Court has held that officials outside the legislative branch are entitled to legislative immunity when they perform legislative functions. Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 55, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998). The Supreme Court of a state is entitled to legislative immunity when its members act in a legislative capacity to promulgate a State Bar Code. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. at 734, 100 S.Ct. 1967. As well, the President acts legislatively when he approves or vetoes bills passed by Congress. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 966; cf. Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482, 490, 52 S.Ct. 627, 76 L.Ed. 1239 (1932) (noting the legislative character of the President's function in approving or disapproving bills). Likewise, a governor who signs into law or vetoes legislation passed by the legislature is also entitled to absolute immunity for that act. Women's Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir.2003) (Under the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity, a governor cannot be sued for signing a bill into law.); cf. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 372-73, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932) (recognizing a governor's signing or vetoing of a bill is a part of the legislative process). 28 The plaintiffs argue that this legislative immunity may be abrogated if the enactment of the legislation was motivated by impermissible intent. That argument was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Bogan, which extended absolute legislative immunity from suit under § 1983 to local legislators for their legislative activities. Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54, 118 S.Ct. 966. The Court held that even where a jury found that constitutionally sheltered speech was a substantial or motivating factor behind an ordinance which eliminated a city department with only one employee, the mayor and head of the city council were absolutely immune from suit for damages under legislative immunity. Id. The Court held that before one asked about the defendants' subjective intent there was the logically prior question of whether their acts were legislative. Id. 29 In the logically separate and prior inquiry as to whether the acts are legislative, the only inquiry relevant in this case, intent is not part of the analysis. 9 The Court instructed in Bogan: Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it. Id. The Court had little difficulty in concluding that the ordinance at issue had all the hallmarks of traditional legislation: 30 The ordinance reflected a discretionary, policymaking decision implicating the budgetary priorities of the city and the services the city provides to its constituents. Moreover, it involved the termination of a position, which, unlike the hiring or firing of a particular employee, may have prospective implications that reach well beyond the particular occupant of the office. And the city council, in eliminating [the department in which the plaintiff was the sole employee], certainly governed in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act. 31 Id. at 55-56, 118 S.Ct. 966 (quoting Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 379, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)); see also Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 204 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir.2000) (distinguishing the legislative activities in Bogan from non-immunized administrative decisions made by officials implementing a layoff plan: the plan's procedures and criteria were not observed; terminated employees were from one political party and were replaced by employees from the other political party; and there was evidence of political harassment). Law 94 also has all the hallmarks of traditional legislation. 32 Tenney is even more explicit that there can be no inquiry into legislative motive no matter how corrupt, for purposes of § 1983 damages liability, so long as the state legislature is acting in traditional legislative areas. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377, 71 S.Ct. 783 (The claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege [of legislative immunity] .... [I]t [is] not consonant with our scheme of government for a court to inquire into the motives of legislators....). The same is true of the act of a governor in signing legislation. The remedies are in the political processes. 33
34 The plaintiffs also seek damages for the actions taken by Governor Calderón, Miranda-Rodriguez (Governor Calderon's Chief of Staff), and Charriez to implement the new legislation: the naming of a new Chairman and new Commissioners, the notice to the plaintiffs that their positions had been eliminated, and the consequent termination of their employment. 35 The actions by the executive officials (including the governor) taken to implement legislation are not shielded by legislative immunity. Under Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), these implementation actions (as opposed to the governor's signing the law) should be evaluated under the qualified immunity doctrine, rather than under legislative immunity. Id. at 247-48, 94 S.Ct. 1683. The district court properly did so. 36 This circuit usually evaluates qualified immunity claims under a three-part test. See, e.g., Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare, 392 F.3d 55, 60-61 (1st Cir.2004). The first part of the test asks: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right? Id. at 61 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the second stage, the question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would be on notice that his conduct was unlawful. Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). And in the last stage, we ask whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 37 As we ordinarily must do, we start first with the question of whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of the First Amendment at all. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). We conclude they have not. 38 Under the plain language of Law 94, the Governor was entitled to appoint a Chairman of the Commission. The First Amendment did not require the Governor to make her choice from the existing twenty-five Commissioners. The same is true of the appointment of the other three Commissioners. 39 The claim concerning termination of the plaintiffs' employment, on different facts, could come out differently. If the plaintiffs had argued that the defendants had selectively replaced some of the previous Commissioners, but not others, using political affiliation as the criteria, the plaintiffs may have stated a claim. See Acevedo-Garcia, 204 F.3d at 10-11; Rutan, 497 U.S. at 65-66, 110 S.Ct. 2729. But the plaintiffs have made no such claim; instead, the pleadings show that all Commissioners were terminated on the same neutral principle: that Law 94 eliminated the positions of all twenty-five previous Commissioners. 40 Whether the articulated neutral principle—that the statute eliminated the positions—is correct or not may raise a question of Puerto Rico law, but it does not state a First Amendment claim. There is no claim based on the First Amendment for disparate impact based on the political affiliation doctrine because [i]t is in the nature of a change in administration that job actions by the new party in power will have a disparate impact on members of the outgoing party. Sanchez-Lopez v. Fuentes-Pujols, 375 F.3d 121, 140 (1st Cir. 2004). To put it differently, even if under Puerto Rico law the plaintiffs turn out to have some sort of tenure, they still have no First Amendment claim. All Commissioners' positions were eliminated on the basis that there was no such tenure; therefore, there was no discrimination.