Filarsky v. Delia (10-1018)

argument 10-1018

Filarsky v. Delia

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal basis for extending qualified immunity to private attorneys working with the government?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next this morning in case ten ten eighteen, Fularski versus Delia. Ms. Millette.

Sarah Millette 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. When a private attorney is temporarily retained by the government to work in coordination with or under the direct supervision of government employees. In fulfilling the government's business. In getting the government's work done. That attorney is entitled to the same immunity that a government employee performing that same function for that same government would receive. This case that is qualified immunity. That rule comports with the history and policy concerns that have animated this court's nineteen section nineteen eighty three and and immunity jurisprudence.

Sonia Sotomayor 0:50

Is there any situation in which a private Attorney uh engaged to assist a government office in the performance of a public function would lack qualified immunity. Or is it simply whatever a government agency employs a private attorney to assist it in doing its work that attorney will have qualified immunity.

Sarah Millette 1:14

I think i it may well be the latter rule, the more broader one, but for these purposes the the courts only needs to decide the situation when they are working uh in in uh coordination with or under direct supervision of government employees. And I want to clarify that answer to that because Howen defines doing a public service For example, if a state government appoints somebody to represent one of their police officers who sued in a nineteen eighty-three action, if there's five defendants, the governor attorney general can't represent them all. They will out commonly appoint people and will come pay them some states will pay them from the f from the state fist. And so they'll be paid by the government to perform

Sarah Millette 1:52

A governmental function in that sense, but their allegiance there is to the individual employee, not to the government. The same with public defenders. So there are certain situations where someone can be retained by the government in that sense, paid by the government in that sense. Why does

Samuel A. Alito 2:07

it matter whether the privately retained attorney works in close cooperation with government employees? Suppose in this case, Mr. Fularski had simply been hired to go off and perform this investigation and at the end of the investigation report the results to the town. Would the case come out differently then?

Sarah Millette 2:26

Um I don't think that would, but in in this what I think it depends on what one means by coordination with or supervision. And with respect to attorneys, Um attorneys can never be an independent contractor in relationship to their client in the way the prison was in Richardson. Attorneys just can't be. They are always, in the sense of the rule that I'm using it, working for their client agency, their client government and under its control and authority. Um and the decisions they make are the decisions of that client. And that's why the whole the whole reason we should have this rule is understanding what immunity protects. It protects government decision making governmental conduct and its ability to move with an area in an area of reasoned decision making.

Sarah Millette 3:11

Mm-hmm.

Antonin Scalia 3:11

And I suppose I suppose you can argue that there is a built in limitation because the question doesn't even come up unless there's state action. So there has to be close enough cooperation so there's I had never thought that when private attorney gives an opinion letter. to a government uh uh uh agency or government entity at its request uh that there's any state action there at all. So that question so there the question just wouldn't even come up. Right because certainly Right, because certainly

Sarah Millette 3:41

the state action limitation um both limits the operation of this rule. There's many times attorneys or others who work with the government will not implicate the state action rule. Um and that's sort of the irony of of this case, and I think it would not be uncommon in attorney cases. The only reason This was a tort. or an alleged to it is because the government was involved, because governmental actors took his advice, conducted a search he didn't.