Legislative Privilege and School Boards: Lessons from the Western District of Virginia

A recent decision by Senior U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski offers critical guidance for school board members on the scope—and the limits—of legislative privilege. The case, which culminated in an August 6, 2026 post-trial opinion, illustrates how a federal court analyzes legislative privilege claims by school board members and, ultimately, how those claims can backfire when invoked too broadly.

What Is Legislative Privilege?

Legislative privilege derives from constitutional protections originally afforded to speech by federal Senators and Representatives.  Courts have extended analogous—but more limited—protections to state and local legislators as a matter of federal common law.

For local officials, including school board members, legislative privilege provides two forms of protection: (1) legislative immunity from suit for actions taken as part of the legislative process, and (2) a qualified evidentiary privilege that may shield officials from being compelled to testify or produce documents about their internal legislative deliberations. The key word for local officials is “qualified.” Unlike the absolute protections enjoyed by members of Congress, a local official’s privilege against compelled testimony and document production is limited.

The Underlying Facts

In 2020, a local School Board in Virginia voted to retire the names of two schools named for Confederate generals citing the harmful effect of those names on Black students. In 2024, a newly constituted School Board voted to reinstate those Confederate names. Plaintiffs brought suit alleging the reinstatement violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. As the case progressed, the School Board moved to limit discovery based on legislative privilege, seeking to bar testimony and document production related to its members’ deliberations about both the 2020 and 2024 naming decisions.

The Legislative Privilege Discovery Ruling: Defining the Boundaries

In pretrial discovery rulings, Judge Urbanski limited the ways School Board members could invoke legislative privilege in a federal civil rights case. His rulings included the following:

1. Post-decisional material is not protected. Evidence created after the key School Board votes at issue was not privileged.
2. Pre-election material is not protected. Evidence created by current School Board members before they were elected to the School Board was not privileged.
3. Communications with outsiders are not protected. Documents shared with individuals or organizations outside the School Board itself were not privileged.
4. Purely factual information is not protected. Evidence of factual information available to the School Board at the time of its decision—such as information about the history or effect of Confederate school names on students—was not privileged.
5. Race-related deliberations must be disclosed. Pre-decisional documents involving School Board members were ruled discoverable to the extent they mentioned race or revealed awareness of the impact of Confederate school names on Black students.
6. No selective invocation—the “sword and shield” prohibition. To the extent a School Board member shields evidence pursuant to legislative privilege, the member is precluded from introducing other evidence on the same topic at trial.

The Trial Ruling: Implications of Legislative Privilege

Following trial, Judge Urbanski found in favor of plaintiffs on all claims. The legislative privilege invocation had a significant impact on the trial. Because the School Board members declined to respond to discovery about their reasons for the 2024 vote—invoking legislative privilege—the court did not allow them to present trial testimony on the topic. Although the court drew no adverse inference from the privilege invocation, the practical result was that the School Board had a very limited ability to present evidence on one of the key issues in the case. 

Practical Guidance for School Board Members

The case offers several takeaways for school board members navigating legislative privilege:

1. Understand that the privilege is qualified, not absolute. School board members are not members of Congress. Their legislative privilege can be overcome by competing federal interests, particularly in civil rights cases alleging intentional discrimination.
2. Know what is not protected. Communications with outside groups, factual materials, post-vote deliberations, and pre-election statements all fall outside the privilege. Do not assume that all communications touching on a board decision are privileged simply because the decision was legislative in nature.
3. Recognize the “sword and shield” risk. If you invoke legislative privilege to withhold evidence of your deliberations, you may be unable to present testimony about your motivations at trial.
4. Consider whether invoking the privilege actually serves your interests. In a case where discriminatory intent must be proven, an overbroad privilege assertion may hurt more than it helps. If motivations for a decision are legitimate, allowing discovery into those motivations—and testifying about them—may be the most effective defense.
5. Document your legitimate reasons contemporaneously. Because post-decisional material and factual information are not protected by the privilege anyway, school board members should ensure that their legitimate policy rationales are reflected in the public record—meeting minutes, public statements, and formal resolutions—so that the defense is not dependent on material shielded by legislative privilege.

Conclusion

As to school board members, legislative privilege is a shield with significant gaps—particularly in federal civil rights cases. School board members should approach the privilege strategically, understanding both its boundaries and its unintended consequences.

If you have any questions, please contact one of our School & Education Law Attorneys.

Subscribe now to receive the latest insights from our team.