## Facts

- The California Senate created a fact-finding committee to investigate “un-American activities” in the state.
- William Brandhove, a political activist, previously testified before the committee.
- Brandhove later circulated a petition urging legislators not to appropriate additional funds for the committee, accusing it of using him to smear a political candidate and alleging coordination with San Francisco’s mayoral campaign.
- Citing a conflict between the petition and Brandhove’s earlier testimony, the committee sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Brandhove and subpoenaed him to appear at a committee hearing.
- The committee conducted the hearing and took testimony from San Francisco’s mayor, who had been named in Brandhove’s accusations.
- Brandhove sued committee members (state legislators) and others for damages under federal civil-rights and conspiracy provisions (then codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 43 and 47(3)), alleging a plan to intimidate and silence him and to punish him for criticizing the committee, in violation of constitutional rights including free speech and due process.

## Issues

1. Whether members of a state legislative committee may be held liable for damages under the federal Civil Rights Act for actions taken during a legislative investigation.
2. Whether allegations of retaliatory or improper motive remove absolute legislative immunity when the challenged conduct is within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated dismissal of the claims against the legislators and the committee.
- The Court held that state legislators have absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
- The Court concluded that Congress did not, through the Civil Rights Act of 1871, clearly abrogate the traditional legislative privilege.
- The Court held that allegations of bad faith or an “unworthy purpose” do not defeat legislative immunity when the conduct is legislative in character.
- The Court found the committee’s use of hearings, subpoenas, and referrals to prosecutors to be traditional tools of legislative inquiry and not, on the pleadings, an obvious usurpation of executive or judicial functions.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute legislative immunity bars civil damages suits against state legislators for acts done within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
- General civil-rights and conspiracy statutes are construed against abrogating long-recognized legislative immunity absent clear congressional intent.
- Claims that legislators acted with retaliatory motive or bad faith do not negate immunity if the challenged acts are legislative.
- A legislative investigation may fall outside protected activity only where it is clearly an obvious usurpation of functions exclusively committed to another branch.

## Conclusion

The Court held that legislators conducting a committee investigation were absolutely immune from civil damages liability under federal civil-rights statutes for legislative acts, and that asserted retaliatory motives did not remove that immunity where the conduct remained within legitimate legislative activity.


Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)