![](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2021/08/Census-2020-767x633.jpg)
Judges Shield Lawmakers From Testifying in Redistricting Fight
A panel of federal judges cited a legal concept known as "legislative privilege," which it said prevents inquiry into motivations for legislative decisions.
May 30, 2023 at 12:32 PM
4 minute read
A panel of federal judges shielded eight current and former legislative leaders from having to testify in a challenge to a congressional redistricting plan that Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed through last year.
The panel blocked an attempt by plaintiffs' attorneys to depose the Republican leaders, including former Senate President Wilton Simpson and former House Speaker Chris Sprowls, in a lawsuit that alleges the redistricting plan intentionally discriminated against Black voters.
The ruling cited a legal concept known as "legislative privilege," which it said prevents inquiry into motivations for legislative decisions.
"This is true even when — as in this case — there are allegations of improper or unlawful motives," U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor wrote for the panel.
While saying legislative privilege is not "absolute," Winsor wrote that the plaintiffs "have not shown that this is the extraordinary case in which legislative privilege must yield to federal interests."
Along with Simpson and Sprowls, the ruling shielded Sen. Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island; former Sen. Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero; Rep. Tyler Sirois, R-Merritt Island; Rep. Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach; Rep. Kaylee Tuck, R-Lake Placid; and Rep. Randy Fine, R-Brevard County. All had leadership roles in the once-a-decade redistricting process.
The lawsuit, filed last year by Common Cause Florida, Fair Districts Now, the Florida State Conference of the NAACP and individual plaintiffs, alleges that the redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal protection, while the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote based on race.
The case focuses, in part, on a decision to redraw North Florida's Congressional District 5, which in the past elected Black Democrat Al Lawson. After DeSantis vetoed an initial redistricting plan, lawmakers approved a map that dramatically changed the North Florida district, ultimately leading in November to white Republicans winning all seats across the region.
In a court document last week, attorneys for the plaintiffs said they wanted to question the legislative leaders about a roughly three-week period last spring. That period started with DeSantis' veto of the initial plan and ended with lawmakers passing a map that DeSantis proposed during a special legislative session.
"The public record contains virtually no explanation of the crucial juncture where the Legislature, including these legislators, who had repeatedly endorsed and defended a congressional redistricting map that preserved minority access, abruptly reversed their stance, abdicated their mapmaking responsibilities to the governor, and ultimately passed a map that destroyed the minority access district they had previously sought to protect," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the May 19 document. "The black box of the Legislature's special session stands in stark contrast to how the Legislature, and legislators, conducted the redistricting process up to that point, which was characterized by open debate and good-faith deliberations based on a shared and clear understanding of the Legislature's obligations under state and federal law."
But in a Feb. 1 motion to quash subpoenas for the depositions, attorneys for the lawmakers wrote that legislative privilege protects "the legislative process from the harms that result when unwelcome entanglement in civil litigation inhibits lawmakers in the discharge of legislative duties. Most courts have recognized the higher interests at stake and diligently protected the legislative process from those harms."
"The privilege applies even — or especially — in important cases, and where the motives of the legislative branch are relevant," the motion said. "Plaintiffs are not entitled to interrogate legislators regarding their role in the enactment of Florida's new congressional districts."
Unlike most cases, a three-judge panel is hearing the redistricting case. Along with Winsor, the panel is made up of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan and U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers.
Thursday's ruling also shielded DeSantis' general counsel, Ryan Newman, from testifying. It allowed a deposition on limited topics of J. Alex Kelly, a deputy chief of staff for DeSantis who played a key role in the redistricting process.
Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit is pending in Leon County circuit court that alleges the changes to Congressional District 5 violated a 2010 state constitutional amendment that set standards for redistricting.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/28/90/106b497d4c2abf86218e4414ada2/attorney-fees-767x633.jpg)
Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute read![As Unpredictability Rises, Gov't Law Practices Expect Trump Bump. Especially in Florida As Unpredictability Rises, Gov't Law Practices Expect Trump Bump. Especially in Florida](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/3a/bd/04f8d6ca45a49bc6f4b27abc8f32/trump-2025-767x633.jpg)
As Unpredictability Rises, Gov't Law Practices Expect Trump Bump. Especially in Florida
5 minute read![New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/98/ca/4dd6a947421bbc9c53aad7b8dd51/allstate-insurance-2-767x633.jpg)
![Brownstein Hyatt Opens 13th Office in Tampa With Lobbying Focus Brownstein Hyatt Opens 13th Office in Tampa With Lobbying Focus](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4e/16/10ba62784f9f8905e4ab91a1fdd9/blake-benenson-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Pistachio Giant Wonderful Files Trademark Suit Against Canadian Maker of Wonderspread
- 2New York State Authorizes Stand-Alone Business Interruption Insurance Policies
- 3Buyer Beware: Continuity of Coverage in Legal Malpractice Insurance
- 4‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Some Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 5BCLP Joins Saudi Legal Market with Plans to Open Two Offices
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250