A federal three-judge panel blocked the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from subpoenaing documents and communications between Chris Brown, owner of a political consulting firm called Red State Strategies, and members of the State House and Senate in an ongoing redistricting lawsuit on Friday.
A three-judge panel heard testimony and arguments in federal court in Birmingham in June regarding whether to quash the subpoena on legislative privilege grounds. The panel included U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus and U.S. District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer.
Lawmakers invoking legislative privilege to quash the subpoena in their communications with Brown on redistricting include: State Sens. Dan Roberts (R-Mountain Brook), State Sen. Will Barfoot (R-Pike Road), former State Sen. Clay Scofield (R-Guntersville), State Rep. Jim Carns (R-Vestavia Hills), State Rep. Jamie Kiel (R-Russellville), State Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Indian Springs), State Rep. Ernie Yarbrough (R-Trinity), State Rep. Mack Butler (R-Rainbow City) and State Rep. Rick Rehm (R-Dothan).
Marcus, Manasco and Moorer wrote in a Friday filing that legislative privilege shields the discovery sought by the plaintiffs in the redistricting case.
“There is no evidence in the record that any other person or entity paid RedState for its consulting work concerning the development and adoption of SB5. In short, the evidence establishes that RedState worked at the direction of the nine legislators, and for no one else, in this respect. The long and short of it is that each of the Nonparty Legislators engaged RedState and its president, Christopher Brown, to perform a basic legislative function. It seems indisputable to us that the development of SB5 was 'an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which [the legislators] participate[d] in [legislative] proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation.' Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. The Nonparty Legislators retained RedState to perform acts that were well 'within the ‘sphere of legitimate legislative activity,’ id. at 624 (quoting Tenney, 341 U.S. at 376), and so RedState was entitled to invoke the privilege,” Marcus, Manasco and Moorer wrote on Friday in an order granting the motion to quash the discovery.
The trial in the redistricting lawsuit is scheduled for February 2025.
Red State Motion to Quash by Caleb Taylor on Scribd
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email caleb.taylor@1819News.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
