Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1978

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.

436 U.S. 658 | 98 S. Ct. 2018 | 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 | 1978 U.S. LEXIS 100

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case makes local governments directly liable under § 1983 when an official policy or settled custom causes a constitutional injury, while rejecting automatic municipal liability for every constitutional tort committed by an employee.

Background

A class of female employees of New York City's Department of Social Services and Board of Education sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that official maternity-leave policies required pregnant employees to take unpaid leave before medical necessity required it. They sought injunctive relief and backpay for the periods of forced leave.

After the suit began, the City and Board changed their maternity-leave policies, mooting the claims for prospective relief. The District Court nevertheless held that the prior policies were unconstitutional under Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. It denied backpay, however, because Monroe v. Pape had been read to bar § 1983 damages against municipalities, and any award against the officials sued only in their official capacities would ultimately be paid by the City.

The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the Board was not a § 1983 “person” and that, although the named officials were persons, an official-capacity damages award could not proceed because it would effectively impose liability on the City. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether local governmental bodies and officials sued in their official capacities could be liable for backpay under § 1983.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether local governments and local governmental bodies are “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Holding

Yes. Municipalities and other local governmental bodies are § 1983 “persons” and may be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief when their official policy or custom causes a constitutional deprivation.

Reasoning

The Court overruled Monroe v. Pape to the extent Monroe had held that local governments were wholly immune from suit under § 1983. Monroe had rested on Congress's rejection of the Sherman Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, but the Court concluded that Monroe misread both the amendment and the legislative debate surrounding it.

The rejected Sherman Amendment would have imposed a distinctive form of liability for private riot violence. Its opponents objected principally that Congress could not compel municipalities to assume a new, federally imposed duty to keep the peace—particularly where state law had not imposed that duty or given the locality the power to perform it. That objection did not establish an objection to holding a municipality accountable for its own official conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The debates over § 1 of the 1871 Act, now § 1983, showed Congress intended a broad remedial measure against official violations of federal rights. Members of Congress understood that municipal corporations could inflict constitutional injuries through official acts, including uncompensated takings, and there was no persuasive indication that Congress meant to exempt those entities from the statute's coverage.

The Dictionary Act enacted shortly before the Civil Rights Act provided that “person” includes bodies politic and corporate unless context requires otherwise. Because municipal corporations were understood as bodies politic and corporate, and nothing in § 1983's text or context demanded exclusion, the ordinary statutory reading included local governments.

This conclusion also aligned § 1983 with the Court's longstanding practice of adjudicating civil-rights cases in which school boards were principal defendants. A rule of blanket municipal immunity could not be logically confined to cities and counties while leaving school boards subject to federal civil-rights remedies.

Issue #2

Whether a municipality is liable under § 1983 solely because it employs an official who commits a constitutional tort.

Holding

No. A local government is not vicariously liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory; liability exists only when an official policy or custom is the moving force behind the constitutional injury.

Reasoning

Section 1983 imposes liability on a person who, under color of law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected,” another person to a constitutional deprivation. That causal language supports liability when governmental action causes the injury, but it does not make an employer automatically liable merely because the wrongdoer was its employee.

Congress's treatment of the Sherman Amendment reinforced this reading. The amendment's broad proposal to impose liability for harms caused by others was rejected, and the enacted substitute imposed liability only on persons who knew of a conspiracy, had power to prevent it, and neglected or refused to act. The history therefore did not support importing a general theory of vicarious liability into § 1983.

A municipality may be liable when the unconstitutional action implements an officially adopted policy, ordinance, regulation, decision, or a sufficiently settled governmental custom. A custom need not have formal approval if it is so persistent and well established that it has the force of law.

The challenged maternity-leave rules were official policies, not isolated misconduct by lower-level employees. Because those policies were the moving force behind the constitutional deprivation found by the District Court, the City entities could be sued for the requested backpay.

Issue #3

Whether stare decisis barred the Court from overruling Monroe's blanket municipal-immunity rule.

Holding

No. The Court concluded that stare decisis did not require adherence to Monroe's erroneous interpretation of § 1983.

Reasoning

Although statutory precedents ordinarily receive substantial respect because Congress may amend a statute, stare decisis is not mechanical. The Court found that Monroe's conclusion rested on an incorrect account of the 1871 legislative history and conflicted with the statutory text, the Dictionary Act, and the history of § 1983 litigation involving local governmental bodies.

Monroe's blanket rule was also difficult to reconcile with the Court's numerous school-board cases, including cases in which § 1983 supplied the jurisdictional basis. Congress had likewise legislated with the understanding that local educational agencies could be defendants in federal civil-rights and desegregation litigation.

Municipalities had no legitimate reliance interest in an assumed freedom to violate constitutional rights. Injunctive actions against local officials could already halt unconstitutional policies, and Monroe did not affirmatively authorize unconstitutional conduct.

Issue #4

Whether local governments sued under § 1983 retain an absolute immunity from damages or other relief.

Holding

No as to absolute immunity; the Court held local governmental bodies cannot have absolute immunity under § 1983, but left the scope of any qualified immunity for another case.

Reasoning

An absolute municipal immunity would drain the Court's recognition of direct municipal liability of practical meaning. Thus, once local governments were held to be § 1983 persons, they could not be entirely insulated from suit.

The parties had not litigated the availability or scope of any more limited municipal immunity, and the lower courts had not addressed it. The Court therefore reserved those questions rather than defining the full contours of municipal liability.

Concurrences

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell joined the Court's opinion but emphasized why Monroe should be reconsidered despite its prominence. In his view, Monroe had produced an anomalous result: it broadly opened federal courts to § 1983 suits against individual local officials while exempting the local governments whose express policies could directly cause the constitutional violation.

He read the defeated Sherman Amendment as a proposal for vicarious liability for private riot violence, not as evidence that Congress intended immunity for a municipality's own affirmative official conduct. The House's principal concern was that Congress was imposing a new duty to preserve the peace on local bodies that might lack both that duty and the power to perform it.

Justice Powell also stressed that Monroe itself had involved a respondeat superior theory and that the question of direct municipal liability for official policy had not been fully aired. The Court's prior school-board cases, many of which proceeded on the practical assumption that local entities could be sued, made continued blanket immunity especially untenable.

He cautioned that difficult questions remained over what counts as an official policy or custom and whether a qualified municipal immunity might exist. But this case involved formal written policies, making it the clear case for recognizing municipal liability.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens joined only Parts I, III, and V of the Court's opinion. He agreed that Monroe should be overruled and that the judgment should be reversed, but regarded the Court's extended discussion of the policy-or-custom limitation and municipal immunity as unnecessary to decide this case.

Because the challenged policies were plainly official and the Court had not been asked to resolve the full boundaries of municipal liability or immunity, Justice Stevens considered Parts II and IV advisory rather than essential to the judgment.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Burger, would have adhered to Monroe and affirmed. He argued that stare decisis carries its greatest force in statutory cases because Congress can correct an erroneous interpretation, and Congress had repeatedly left Monroe intact despite the Court's reaffirmations of it.

In his view, the Court's new review of the same legislative history did not establish beyond doubt that Monroe had misread Congress's intent. The Sherman Amendment was the one occasion on which Congress squarely considered municipal tort liability, and Congress rejected it. General statements favoring broad civil-rights remedies could not overcome that specific legislative event.

Justice Rehnquist also maintained that the Dictionary Act did not compel treating municipalities as § 1983 persons. Its use of “may” allowed, but did not require, the inclusion of bodies politic and corporate, and the constitutional and common-law treatment of corporations varied by context.

He rejected the majority's reliance on school-board cases and later congressional enactments because the municipal-liability issue often had not been argued or decided in those cases. In his view, municipalities had reasonably relied on Monroe's rule when budgeting, insuring, and structuring indemnification, particularly as constitutional doctrine expanded in ways officials could not have predicted.

The dissent concluded that a change with potentially serious fiscal consequences for local governments should come from Congress, which could weigh the competing policy considerations and define the scope of any municipal liability.