From the opinion in Gays Against Groomers v. Garcia:
For millennia, deliberative bodies across the world have set their own rules for debating matters of concern so that they may better affect the public business with “order, decency, and regularity.” Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice 18 (Jonathan Phillips 1848). Today, legislatures across the country are debating a matter of significant public interest – the rights of transgender persons – within these broad parameters. This appeal concerns not the substance of these debates, but rather their procedural rules, and whether a federal court may inquire into the lawfulness of those rules in a suit against legislators in their official capacity. We hold that it may not.
Gays Against Groomers, et al. (together “GAG”) sued a group of Colorado State Legislators in their individual capacities and official capacities as legislators. GAG alleged that the Legislators violated their First Amendment rights by promulgating and enforcing rules of decorum that barred misgendering and deadnaming in legislative hearings. On legislative immunity and mootness grounds, the district court granted the Legislators’ motion to dismiss GAG’s complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment. GAG timely appealed. The doctrine of legislative immunity forecloses our inquiry into the merits of the Legislators’ actions here, and so the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Because we hold the Legislators are entitled to legislative immunity, we do not reach the merits of GAG’s constitutional claims. We also hold that this case is not moot and remains justiciable.
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez
Panel: CARSON, EBEL, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge Federico, with Judge Carson concurring in parts II, III-A and III-B-1 and concurring in the
judgment.)
Decision: District court judgment AFFIRMED; district court’s denial of GAG’s motions for a preliminary injunction and relief from the local rules on mootness grounds AFFIRMED.
GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS v. GARCIA, No. 24-1473 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00913-RMR) (D. Colo.) Read the entire opinion.