In re Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, and Henry Cuellar, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that members of the Legislative Redistricting Board and their aides were protected by legislative immunity from discovery concerning the formulation of legislative redistricting plans. The court concluded that the immunity includes an evidentiary and testimonial privilege and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception. The court conditionally issued a writ of mandamus because the relators lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Holdings

1. The Legislative Redistricting Board members acted in a legislative capacity when apportioning senatorial and representative districts pursuant to their constitutional mandate because the board stepped into the Legislature's shoes and its apportionment had the force and effect of law.
2. Legislative immunity extends to the Legislative Redistricting Board members' aides for activities assisting in the development of the redistricting plan.
3. Legislative immunity encompasses an evidentiary and testimonial privilege that generally protects legislative actors and their aides from being required to testify about legislative activities.
4. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate an extraordinary circumstance warranting compelled testimony or discovery from the Legislative Redistricting Board members and aides.
5. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to quash, and the relators had no adequate remedy by appeal because the order required disclosure of privileged information.

Questions Presented

1. Whether members of the Legislative Redistricting Board acted in a legislative capacity when developing redistricting plans pursuant to article III, section 28 of the Texas Constitution.
2. Whether legislative immunity extends to the board members' legislative aides.
3. Whether legislative immunity encompasses an evidentiary and testimonial privilege protecting the board members and aides from depositions concerning their redistricting activities.
4. Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated extraordinary circumstances sufficient to overcome or restrict that testimonial privilege.
5. Whether the relators lacked an adequate remedy by appeal and were entitled to mandamus relief.

Disposition

writ_granted