Crime & Federalism

Thornton v. City of St. Helens, slip op. at 12454, has an interesting discussion of legislative immunity:

Baker and Little are not entitled to legislative immunity. Baker is the city manager and Little is the city planner. Their jobs are administrative in nature and they were sued for performing an administrative act. Specifically, the Thorntons' amended complaint named Baker and Little as the persons "responsible for processing the annual renewal application[ s]."  Processing an individual application pursuant to an established policy is not a legislative function. See Haskell v. Washington Township, 864 F.2d 1266, 1278 (6th Cir. 1988); Scott v. Greenville County, 716 F.2d 1409, 1423 (4th Cir. 1983). Because Baker and Little are not legislators and were not sued for performing a legislative act, legislative immunity does not shield them from suit. See Chappell v. Robbins, 73 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court erred in concluding otherwise.

The rest of the case is depressing.  Each year the city would delay issuing the scrap yard owner's a salvage license, which caused it to shut down for weeks or months each year.  The plaintiffs ultimately lose their procedural due process claim, though on issue preclusion grounds (they had filed an earlier state court action, though under a different theory).  And the opinion is tortured.  (Few judges or lawyers understand land use cases, which in my opinion, are the most complicated type of Section 1983 cases to maintain.)  So don't read it unless you study or practice in this area - unless you want a headache, or a sleeping pill.