Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983ImmunityAttorney's FeesProspective Relief§ 1983§ 1988legislative immunity

Facts

The Supreme Court of Virginia had promulgated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, including DR 2-102(A)(6), which restricted attorney advertising and prevented lawyers from supplying information Consumers Union wanted to publish in a legal services directory. Under Virginia law, the court had broad authority to promulgate disciplinary rules and also had independent authority under § 54-74 to initiate attorney disciplinary proceedings on its own. After litigation and this Court's intervening decision in Bates, the District Court declared the rule unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The District Court later awarded attorney's fees against the Virginia Court and its chief justice because they had failed to amend the rule to conform to constitutional requirements.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court of Virginia and its chief justice were immune from suit under § 1983 challenging the disciplinary rule, and whether attorney's fees under § 1988 were properly awarded against them. More specifically, the case asked whether their rulemaking function was protected by legislative immunity and whether their enforcement authority made them proper defendants for prospective relief.

Rule

When a state supreme court promulgates attorney-disciplinary rules of general application, it acts in a legislative capacity and is absolutely immune from § 1983 suit based on those legislative acts, including claims for prospective relief. But where that court or its members possess independent statutory or inherent authority to enforce those rules, they may be sued in their enforcement capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief. Attorney's fees under § 1988 may not be premised on acts protected by absolute legislative immunity.

🔒

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 highest court of Franklin promulgates a statewide code of conduct for all licensed architects. Maya Ortiz, an architect in Richmond, files a § 1983 action against the court and its justices seeking only a declaration and injunction on the ground that one provision restricting online marketing violates the First Amendment. Her complaint challenges only the court’s adoption of the rule.

Are the court and its justices proper defendants on that theory?

Explanation. The majority treated promulgation of generally applicable disciplinary rules as rulemaking that is legislative in character, not adjudication. Absolute legislative immunity therefore bars § 1983 suits premised on that legislative act, and the bar extends to suits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief as well as damages. The Court did not rest its decision on an across-the-board rule that courts can never be sued, but on the capacity in which the defendants acted.