Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.
Headline: State high court’s rulemaking is protected by legislative immunity, but its enforcement actions can be sued; the Court vacates an attorney-fee award tied to the court’s rulemaking.
Holding: The Court held that a state supreme court and its chief justice have absolute immunity for legislative rulemaking but can be sued for their independent enforcement actions; the attorney-fee award based on rulemaking was vacated and remanded.
- State courts’ rulemaking is insulated from lawsuits challenging the rules themselves.
- Court officials with enforcement power can be sued for declaratory or injunctive relief.
- Attorney-fee awards cannot be based on acts shielded by absolute legislative immunity.
Summary
Background
Consumers Union and the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council tried to publish a legal services directory listing factual information about local lawyers. The Virginia Supreme Court had adopted a State Bar Code rule, DR 2-102(A)(6), that restricted the kinds of directory information lawyers could provide. A three-judge federal court declared the rule unconstitutional, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and awarded attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court and its chief justice in his official capacity. The state court had both statutory and asserted inherent authority to make the Bar Code and also had independent power to initiate disciplinary enforcement proceedings against attorneys.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that when the Virginia Court adopted the Bar Code it was acting in a legislative capacity and therefore enjoyed absolute legislative immunity from suits challenging its rulemaking. But because the Virginia Court also has separate enforcement authority to initiate proceedings against attorneys, it can be sued in that enforcement role for declaratory or injunctive relief like other enforcement officials. The Court concluded the District Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees where the award was premised on the state court’s exercise (or nonexercise) of its protected legislative rulemaking power. The Court therefore vacated the fee award and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these limits.
Real world impact
The decision protects state courts’ power to adopt professional rules from direct suits attacking the content of those rules, while still allowing challenges to how courts enforce rules. It also limits recovery of attorney’s fees when awards are based on conduct shielded by legislative immunity. The case was sent back for further proceedings on fee issues consistent with these principles.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?