In HIRA Educational Services North America v. Augustine, (3d Cir., March 15, 2021), a consulting agency for Islamic educational groups sued, among others, three Pennsylvania state legislators for actions that prevented the agency from purchasing state land to use for a youth intervention center and Islamic boarding school. Plaintiffs claim that the legislators' actions were discriminatory and violated RLUIPA and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act. The legislators claimed absolute and qualified immunity as a defense.
Plaintiffs pointed to the following actions by defendants:
(1) introducing a resolution to divest [the Pennsylvania Department of General Services] of its authority to sell the property; (2) co-authoring a letter to Governor Wolf describing their concerns...; (4) making public statements against the sale....; (6) meeting with the Secretary of DGS to try to persuade him to halt the sale....
The court held that absolute legislative immunity extends to acts that are "quintessentially legislative" or are integral steps in the legislative process, such as offering resolutions, voting, conducting legislative investigations and writing committee reports, and concluded:
Vogel’s introduction of Senate Resolution 154 and Sainato and Bernstine’s presentation of it to the House were quintessentially legislative activities.... Absolute legislative immunity also applies to the Legislators’ letter to Governor Wolf and Bernstine’s calls to HIRA because both are examples of protected legislative factfinding....
In addition ..., HIRA claimed the Legislators made disparaging public comments about HIRA, met with the DGS Secretary in an attempt to get DGS to cancel the sale to HIRA, and gave preferential treatment to the subsequent purchaser of the property. These are most accurately described as political “errands” or “speeches delivered outside [of] Congress,” so the Legislators are not entitled to absolute immunity for those activities....
[However] qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
HIRA’s claims against Vogel and Sainato fail because HIRA has not pointed to any precedential case prohibiting legislators from speaking against the sale of state-owned property or from extending preferential treatment to certain recipients of government contracts.
