Baker Donelson Given Qualified Immunity in First Amendment Suit

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC was wrongly denied qualified immunity for its role acting as outside counsel for Nashville’s local government in a First Amendment suit, a split federal appeals court held Monday.

Baker Donelson should have been extended qualified immunity since it didn’t violate clearly established law, as there’s no precedent prohibiting it from firing ex-employee James A. DeLanis due to client pressure, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton said for the majority of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The split ruling reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the firm but affirmed denial of immunity to Nashville City Councilman Robert Mendes.

“Baker Donelson, for better or worse, sought to protect its client base, not to punish DeLanis for his speech,” Sutton said.

The former Baker Donelson attorney said the lawsuit stems from a 2020 property tax increase in Nashville that sparked a citizen-led effort to repeal the hike through a ballot referendum. DeLanis, in his role as election commission chair, voted to certify the referendum for the ballot, drawing criticism from city officials, including Mendes.

Nashville officials pressured Baker Donelson to influence DeLanis’s actions on the commission. When DeLanis refused to change his stance, the firm terminated his employment, allegedly at the city’s behest.

DeLanis sued Mendes, the city and county government, and Baker Donelson, arguing they each violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A district court denied the firm and Mendes qualified immunity, contending Baker Donelson, as a private entity, couldn’t benefit from qualified immunity and the councilman violated clearly established federal free-speech law.

But the majority held private attorneys and law firms are eligible for qualified immunity in connection with providing legal services to a government body, Sutton wrote. And while the situation may be “unusual,” there isn’t any established precedent showing otherwise.

DeLanis did sufficiently allege, though, that Mendes violated clearly established law regarding First Amendment retaliation, the opinion said.

“We have left no doubt that causing an employee’s firing due to his protected speech violates the First Amendment,” Sutton said.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons joined the majority.

Judge Eric L. Clay dissented, contending Baker Donelson shouldn’t be afforded qualified immunity since its actions were driven by private business interests rather than public functions.

“Baker Donelson does not perform a public duty or act ‘at the behest of the sovereign’ by firing plaintiff, especially since Baker Donelson’s sole motivation for plaintiff’s termination was its own private business interests,” Clay said.

Schulman LeRoy & Bennett represents DeLanis. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County represents Mendes. Holland & Knight LLP represents Baker Donelson.

The case is DeLanis v. Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 6th Cir., No. 23-5948, 11/24/25.