Lefkowitz v. Turley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationImmunityFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentself-incriminationpublic contractors

Facts

New York statutes required public contracts to include provisions allowing cancellation of existing contracts and five-year disqualification from future public contracting if a contractor refused to waive immunity or answer questions about transactions with the State or its subdivisions. Appellees, two architects licensed in New York, were summoned before a grand jury investigating conspiracy, bribery, and larceny involving state-related transactions. They refused to sign waivers of immunity and were excused, after which the District Attorney notified contracting authorities of their refusal under the statutes. Appellees then sued, alleging that the threatened cancellation and disqualification violated the privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Issue

May a State, consistent with the Fifth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment, require public contractors to waive immunity or answer potentially incriminating questions about their state contracts on pain of cancellation of existing contracts and disqualification from future public contracts? Put differently, may the State impose those economic sanctions to compel testimony that has not been immunized?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination protects witnesses in official inquiries, including grand jury investigations concerning public contracts. A State may compel answers from employees or contractors only if it provides immunity sufficient to replace the privilege, so that neither the compelled answers nor their fruits may be used against the witness in a criminal case; the State may not force a waiver of that immunity by threatening loss of employment, contracts, or similar substantial economic sanctions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City Works Board in Cleveland summons Priya Desai, owner of Lakefront Paving Group, to testify under oath at an administrative corruption inquiry about invoices submitted on a road-repair contract. Board counsel tells her that if she refuses to answer questions that could incriminate her, the city will terminate her current contracts and bar her from bidding for three years, but no immunity is offered.

If Priya challenges the threatened sanctions, which is the strongest constitutional argument?

Explanation. The privilege against self-incrimination applies in official proceedings whether civil or criminal, formal or informal, whenever answers may incriminate the witness in a later criminal case. The majority rejected any constitutional distinction between public employees and public contractors. A State or locality cannot force a contractor to choose between surrendering the privilege and suffering substantial economic penalties such as contract termination or disqualification unless immunity sufficient to supplant the privilege is provided.