In Holsey-Hyman v. Edens (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026), the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed the boundary between protected legislative acts and unprotected administrative or political conduct by local officials. Although the Court dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, its analysis sends a clear message: allegations within a complaint that officials acted outside legitimate legislative purposes or for personal or political retaliation will defeat legislative immunity at the Rule 12 stage.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff Monique Holsey-Hyman, a Durham City Council member, alleged that developers, city staff, and fellow councilmembers falsely accused her of soliciting a campaign contribution in exchange for a vote. City officials allegedly repeated the accusation without investigation, circulated communications implying guilt, publicly disclosed the accusation, and demanded her resignation. The matter was referred to the State Bureau of Investigation, which exonerated Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that two councilmembers prepared and presented a Resolution of Censure despite knowing the allegations were false and did not satisfy the City’s standards. The resolution was allegedly introduced solely to damage Plaintiff’s reputation and was never voted upon. After federal §1983 claims were dismissed and state claims remanded, the trial court denied Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part. Defendants appealed, asserting legislative immunity and a right to interlocutory review.
COURT OF APPEALS’ ANALYSIS
Because the order was interlocutory, Defendants bore the burden of showing a substantial right being affected, thereby warranting immediate review. To that end, they argued legislative immunity applied. The Court reaffirmed that legislative immunity protects only acts within legitimate legislative activity and does not extend to administrative, political, or malicious conduct. Accepting the complaint as true, the allegations described conduct outside the legislative sphere, including leaking information to the press, coordinating with private actors, and using the censure process as a reputational weapon. As immunity did not clearly apply on the face of the complaint, no substantial right was implicated, and the appeal was dismissed.
TAKEAWAY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Holsey‑Hyman serves as a cautionary decision for municipalities and elected officials alike. Legislative immunity remains a powerful protection—but only when officials act within the bounds of legitimate legislative activity. Where pleadings plausibly allege political or retaliatory misuse of legislative tools, courts will allow claims to proceed past the pleading stage, and local governments should expect to litigate the merits rather than obtain early dismissal on immunity grounds.
