Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.5 Legislative Immunity
Members of Congress acting as legislators are absolutely immune from suits for either prospective relief or damages under the speech and debate clause of the U.S.
Members of Congress acting as legislators are absolutely immune from suits for either prospective relief or damages under the speech and debate clause of the U.S.
A constitutional right is clearly established when its contours are “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”4154 Although the “violative nature of the particular conduct” must be clearly established, there is no requirement for a case directly on point.4155 Rather, existing precedent need only “have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”4156 Such p
Conventional claims of unlawful discrimination and retaliation rest upon conduct whose legality depends upon the motive for—not the character of--the conduct. To wit, the Constitution does not prohibit firing public employees, but it does prohibit firing them because of a protected characteristic (e.g., race, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) or in retaliation for protected speech.
Qualified immunity protects public officials from the burden of litigation as well as from judgments.4182 Therefore, courts are instructed to resolve the issue early, before discovery if possible.4183 Because defendants are virtually certain to raise qualified immunity, either through a motion to dismiss or answer or motion for summary judgment, you must anticipate it in drafting the complaint with the plausibility pleading requirements of Iqbal in mind.
The tips offered here are not exhaustive. Advocates should confirm all relevant law, independently research the relevant issues, and discuss strategic approaches with trusted sources.
Section 3.1 updated 2017 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2023 by Nicholas A. Gable
Litigation, especially against government defendants, may involve plaintiffs faced with a risk of threatened injury. Once the plaintiff has asserted a cognizable injury, the Supreme Court has long cautioned that the injury in fact must be “actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”697 Our discussion of non-economic injuries above describes the Court’s approach to this requirement of standing in several of the earlier cases.
Section 3.2 updated 2012 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2023 by Chinh Q. Le
The Supreme Court has identified “two main purposes” underlying exhaustion of administrative remedies. First, “exhaustion protects ‘administrative agency authority,’” by giving the agency “‘an opportunity to correct its own mistakes’” before it is “‘haled into federal court’” and further discouraging “‘disregard of [the agency’s] procedures.’” Second, “exhaustion promotes efficiency,” according to the Court.1124
Administrative advocacy can take a variety of forms in connection with agency adjudication, rule-making and investigation.26 Numerous federal and state benefit programs have procedures for the administrative appeal of adverse decisions. The advocate should evaluate whether these procedures comport with principles of due process and determine whether the administrative appeal is a mandatory or permissive prerequisite to judicial review.
[SECTION 5.3 IS UNDERGOING REVISION]
Section 5.3 updated 2013 by Gill Deford, 2019 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2023 by Catherine McKee
A party seeking declaratory relief under the statute must present an “actual controversy” in order to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III.4473 The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended as a device for rendering mere advisory opinions.
Section 2.8 updated 2015 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2017 by Greg Bass, 2023 by Nicholas A. Gable
As many of the cases cited in the text and footnotes of this Section indicate, a ripeness inquiry can overlap with considerations under several doctrines discussed in greater depth elsewhere in this MANUAL.
The Supreme Court has addressed an additional form of injury—other than economic, recreational, and aesthetic injury—of potential value to legal aid attorneys. In Defenders of Wildlife, plaintiffs sought standing on the ground that the statute in question created a procedural right in the form of interagency consultation that was allegedly violated.
The seesaw battle between shifting Supreme Court majorities over what constitutes an enforceable right led to a greater focus on the relationship between the aim of the statute and its effect on the plaintiff. As formulated by Wilder, even if a statute imposes binding obligations on the state which are capable of judicial enforcement, Section 1983 cannot be invoked unless Congress intended the law to directly benefit the plaintiff. However, this only begins the inquiry.
Beginning in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v.
Section 5.2 updated 2013, 2022 by Robert P. Capistrano
Section 3.4 updated 2017 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2023 by Carmela Huang
This Section discusses the circumstances under which a prospective federal court plaintiff may be required to exhaust judicial or administrative remedies before filing an action in federal court, and the preclusion implications of having such remedies available or pursuing such remedies when they are not statutorily mandated.
The Supreme Court has explained the foundations of claim and issue preclusion as follows:
The first prong of the ripeness test assesses whether the issue presented is “fit” for review.
If exhaustion of judicial or administrative remedies is not required, the advocate has to assess whether to pursue such remedies voluntarily or to proceed with federal litigation. The reality of limited resources often strongly influences this decision. The cost of federal court discovery, hiring expert witnesses, and preparing the case for potential trial poses difficulties for legal services organizations.
[SECTION 5.1 IS UNDERGOING REVISION]
Section 5.1 updated 2013 by Robert P. Capistrano
By its terms, Section 1983 can be used to remedy the deprivation of “rights” granted to the plaintiff under the Constitution, federal statutes, and regulations implementing these statutes.