Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1989

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

489 U.S. 189 | 109 S. Ct. 998 | 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 | 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1039 | 57 U.S.L.W. 4218

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 establishes that the Due Process Clause generally does not require government officials to protect a person from private violence unless the State has taken that person into custody or otherwise imposed a comparable restraint on the person's liberty.

Background

Joshua DeShaney was a young child living with his father in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. County social-service officials received repeated reports that his father was abusing him. After Joshua was hospitalized with suspicious bruises in 1983, the Department of Social Services briefly obtained temporary custody. A child-protection team nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence to keep him from his father, and Joshua was returned home.

Over the following months, a DSS caseworker observed suspicious injuries, learned that recommended protective measures had not been followed, and received additional hospital reports of suspected abuse. Although the caseworker documented her concerns, DSS did not remove Joshua or otherwise intervene. In March 1984, Joshua's father beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage. His father was later convicted of child abuse.

Joshua and his mother sued Winnebago County, DSS, and individual employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that officials violated Joshua's substantive due process rights by failing to protect him from a danger they knew or should have known existed. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding both that the Due Process Clause generally does not require the State to protect people from private violence and that the causal connection between the officials' conduct and Joshua's injuries was too attenuated. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause generally imposes an affirmative duty on the State to protect an individual from violence by a private actor.

Holding

No. The Due Process Clause generally does not require the State to protect individuals from private violence.

Reasoning

The Due Process Clause is phrased as a limitation on governmental power: it prohibits a State from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It does not, by its terms, guarantee minimum levels of safety or require the government to prevent private persons from harming one another.

The Court explained that substantive due process is principally concerned with preventing the State's abusive or oppressive use of its own power. Consistent with that purpose, prior decisions had held that the Constitution generally creates no affirmative entitlement to government aid, even when that aid might be important to secure a person's life, liberty, or property.

Accordingly, a State's failure to provide protective services that might have prevented harm ordinarily does not itself amount to a constitutional deprivation. States remain free to impose duties of protection through statutes or tort law, but the Fourteenth Amendment does not constitutionalize every governmental failure to exercise reasonable care.

Issue #2

Whether Wisconsin's knowledge of Joshua's danger, its undertaking to investigate abuse reports, and its prior temporary custody of him created a special relationship giving rise to a constitutional duty to protect him.

Holding

No. A constitutional duty of protection arises when the State takes a person into custody and restrains that person's ability to care for himself, not merely when the State knows of danger or expresses an intention to help.

Reasoning

The Court recognized a limited affirmative duty in cases involving prisoners, involuntarily committed patients, and others whom the State has taken into custody. In those settings, the State has restrained the person's liberty and made the person dependent on the State for basic needs, including reasonable safety.

That duty rests on the State's affirmative restraint of the individual's freedom to act for himself, not on the State's awareness of a particular danger or its voluntary promise to provide assistance. Knowledge of risk and an undertaking to help, without more, do not create the custody-based relationship required by the Due Process Clause.

Joshua was injured while in his father's custody, not in State custody. Wisconsin did not create the danger posed by his father or make Joshua more vulnerable to it. Its earlier temporary custody did not make the State a permanent guarantor of Joshua's safety, because returning him to his father left him no worse off than if the State had never intervened.

The Court acknowledged that Wisconsin officials might have assumed a duty under state tort law by undertaking to protect Joshua. But a possible state-law negligence claim did not establish a federal due process violation. Because no constitutional duty existed, the Court did not reach questions concerning the officials' state of mind, qualified immunity, or municipal liability.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, Justice Brennan argued that the majority framed the case too broadly as a demand for general governmental services. In his view, the relevant question was whether Wisconsin's own actions—creating and operating a child-protection system and intervening specifically in Joshua's case—created a constitutional obligation to act responsibly.

Brennan read Estelle and Youngberg more broadly than the majority. Those cases, he explained, do not turn solely on physical confinement. They reflect the principle that when the State cuts off or displaces private sources of assistance and then fails to provide protection itself, its inaction can become constitutionally significant.

Wisconsin law directed reports of child abuse to DSS and placed the agency at the center of the decision whether to remove a child from a dangerous home. In practice, citizens, police, hospitals, and other agencies could report suspected abuse, but DSS controlled the decisive response. Through that system and its repeated intervention in Joshua's life, the State effectively confined him to his father's home unless DSS chose to act.

Brennan would have allowed the DeShaneys to try to prove that DSS's failure to protect Joshua was arbitrary rather than an exercise of professional judgment. Negligence alone would not suffice, but the Due Process Clause should prohibit a State from undertaking a vital protective role, displacing other sources of protection, and then turning away from a known and grave danger.

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun separately condemned what he viewed as the majority's sterile and overly formal distinction between State action and State inaction. He stressed that Wisconsin did more than passively fail to help: it actively intervened in Joshua's life, learned of his severe danger, and then failed to provide meaningful protection.

In Blackmun's view, the Fourteenth Amendment's broad guarantees should be read with attention to fundamental justice rather than through a rigid formalism that denied relief merely because Joshua's father inflicted the final injuries. He would have permitted Joshua and his mother to present their constitutional claim and have the facts assessed under § 1983.