Whether local (municipal or regional) legislators are entitled to absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative acts

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · 7th Cir.Risser v. Thompson930 F.2d 549
• On the other side · 6th Cir.Alia v. Michigan Supreme Court906 F.2d 1100

  “Defendants argue that we were incorrect in asserting such a broad proposition of law in light of Supreme Court of Virginia v.” — Acierno v. Cloutier, acknowledging the split

• Joined bySchrob II967 F.2d 939
• Joined by · 9th Cir.Fry v. Melaragno939 F.2d 832
• Joined by · 5th Cir.Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Dep't of Public Welfare925 F.2d 844
• Joined by · 11th Cir.Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County922 F.2d 1536
• Joined by · 2nd Cir.Schloss v. Bouse876 F.2d 287
• DiscussedPrisco851 F.2d 96

  “Specifically, we held/ "that in an action in which claims for prospective relief remain pending, a party against whom they remain pending may not appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds.” Prisco, 851 F.2d at 96 (footnote omitted).” — Acierno v. Cloutier, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.446 U.S. 719 ·

Spallone v. United States493 U.S. 265

Statutes:

§ 1983

Doctrines & tests:

absolute legislative immunity ·

qualified immunity

Constitutional provisions:

Fourteenth Amendment