10/30 – The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent decision in Brooks-Buck v. Wahlstrom clarified the scope of legislative immunity for local officials. In that case a citizen sued two school board members for defamation after they drafted and circulated a disciplinary complaint against a colleague that allegedly included false statements about the citizen. The board members argued that they were protected by legislative, sovereign, and statutory (anti-SLAPP) immunity.

The Court held that initiating disciplinary proceedings qualifies as a legislative act protected by immunity but that statements about an unrelated third party may fall outside that protection if they are gratuitous or nonessential. The justices rejected sovereign immunity for intentional torts and declined to apply Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute where actual malice was alleged. The case now returns to the trial court for factfinding.

The ruling underscores that while legislative immunity protects board functions, it is not a blanket shield, especially when commentary extends beyond official matters.