Liu v. Heastie
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Liu v. Heastie, Judge Swain granted dismissal and dismissed Liu’s complaint without prejudice because legislative immunity barred his challenge to New York’s presidential-election vote-allocation method.
Lewis Y. Liu’s challenge was dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal protected defendants Carl E. Heastie, William A. Barclay, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and Robert G. Ortt from this lawsuit based on legislative immunity.
What happened
In Liu v. Heastie, Lewis Y. Liu challenged New York’s method of awarding all of its presidential electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. He argued that this method violated his voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and sued four state legislative leaders over their alleged responsibility to change the election laws.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. They argued that legislative immunity protected them from the lawsuit because Liu’s claims concerned their legislative work. Liu did not dispute that his claims involved their legislative functions, and the court therefore treated legislative immunity as a limit on its power to hear the case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The court did not consider the defendants’ other dismissal arguments because it concluded that it lacked authority to hear the case.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Heastie · No. 1:24-cv-00812
- Laura Swain
- June 20, 2024
Background
Lewis Y. Liu sued Carl E. Heastie, William A. Barclay, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and Robert G. Ortt. The defendants were identified in the complaint as leaders of the New York State Assembly and Senate. Liu challenged New York’s “Winner-Take-All” method of awarding all of the state’s electoral votes in a presidential election to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote. He claimed that the method violated his voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Liu sued the defendants based on their alleged constitutional duties to pass or update state election laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Rule 12(b)(1), which requires dismissal when a federal court lacks authority to decide a case. The court explained that federal, state, and regional legislators have absolute legislative immunity for legislative activities. That protection covers claims seeking damages and claims seeking future court-ordered relief, including relief intended to require legislators to amend legislation.
The court found that Liu’s claims plainly concerned the defendants’ legislative activities, including their alleged failure to bring forward or pass new laws. The court noted that Liu did not dispute the defendants’ argument that his claims related to their legislative functions. Because legislative immunity applied, the court concluded that it lacked authority to hear the case.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to address the defendants’ remaining arguments. The order resolved docket entry number 17 and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.