Lefkowitz v. Turley

Background

Two architects licensed in New York were called to testify before a grand jury probing alleged conspiracy, bribery, and theft. They refused to sign waivers that would surrender their right not to incriminate themselves. The District Attorney notified contracting authorities under New York statutes that permit cancellation of existing contracts and a five-year ban on future public contracting for anyone who refuses to waive immunity or answer questions. The architects sued, and a three-judge federal court declared those statutory provisions unconstitutional; the State appealed and the Supreme Court reviewed the matter.

Reasoning

The central question was whether New York could strip contractors of contracts or ban them from future contracts for five years when they assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court explained that the privilege protects witnesses in any official inquiry when answers might incriminate them, and that past decisions forbid forcing people to choose between giving incriminating testimony and suffering serious economic penalties. The Court held that threatening contract cancellation and multi-year disqualification to coerce waivers is the kind of compulsion the Fifth Amendment forbids unless the State grants proper immunity that prevents the use of testimony or its fruits in criminal cases. The architects prevailed and the statutes were held unconstitutional as applied.

Real world impact

Public agencies may not cancel contracts or impose five-year bans simply to force contractors to waive their Fifth Amendment rights. States may, however, compel testimony only if they provide immunity that prevents later criminal use of the compelled statements.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan joined the judgment but wrote separately to argue that only absolute immunity, not use-and-derivative-use protection, adequately protects the privilege.