Archive for November 2009
A Section 1983 Primer (2): The Seminal Decision of Monroe v. Pape
This is the second post for those lawyers, law students and others who are not familiar with 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first was on October 27, 2009.
The Seminal Decision: Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
This forty-eight year old decision is where § 1983, enacted long ago in 1871, first had life breathed into it. The themes it announced continue to be important to this day.
Monroe involved a plaintiff’s allegations that police officers entered his home without warning and forced the occupants to stand naked while the entire house was ransacked. The plaintiff was thereafter arrested but released without being charged. According to the plaintiff, the police officers violated his Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendment rights and were personally liable to him for damages under § 1983.
In response, the officers made three arguments, all of which the Court rejected.
The First Defense Argument: “Chutzpa” and Color of Law
The officers’ first argument was one that I have elsewhere characterized as “chutzpa.” Focusing on § 1983’s color of law requirement, they maintained that they did not act under color of law because they allegedly violated the Illinois constitution and much statutory and common law. In their view, § 1983 defendants could only be liable for federal constitutional violations where they acted in a manner consistent with state law. For this reason, the officers did not act under color of law and were not liable for damages under § 1983.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, responded by saying that § 1983’s statutory color of law requirement was essentially the same as the Fourteenth Amendment’s state action requirement: once there was state action, there was color of law. (Justice Frankfurter dissented on this issue). And since in this case it was clear that the plaintiff alleged an abuse of state law and power that violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, state action was present. It followed from this that the plaintiff properly alleged acts under color of law. To put it another way, the Court said that the scope of § 1983 was as broad as the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This turned out to be very significant as the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment expanded, by the process of incorporation, to include most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Read the rest of this entry »
The Equal Protection Clause and Fundamental Interests
Introduction
Litigants who challenge a legislative classification on equal protection grounds prefer, for obvious reasons, to have strict scrutiny apply to that classification. The paradigm suspect classification for which strict scrutiny is used is a classification based on race. However, there is another category of equal protection cases in which a legislative classification has to overcome strict scrutiny, namely, those cases in which a legislative classification burdens a fundamental interest. Unfortunately, this category often causes a great deal of confusion.
The Supreme Court’s Record
It has not helped that the Supreme Court has sometimes misleadingly characterized fundamental interests as “fundamental rights.” At other times, the Court has made clear that fundamental interests are not substantive constitutional rights at all but are “only” fundamental interests. At still other times, the Court has applied strict scrutiny in equal protection cases in which substantive constitutional rights were indeed implicated. Ultimately, the development of fundamental interest doctrine came to a halt in San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Read the rest of this entry »
Prosecutorial Immunity Revisited: The Pottawattamie County Case (UPDATED)
Pottawattamie County Case in Supreme Court: Argued November 4, 2009
The Supreme Court heard argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 129 S. Ct. 2002 (2009)(granting certiorari), on November 4, 2009. What follows is a description of the important section 1983 prosecutorial immunity issues raised.
[Full disclosure: I consulted with defense counsel and my name appears on their merits brief in the Supreme Court].
IMPORTANT UPDATE: AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT THE PARTIES SETTLED THE CASE AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULE 46 ON JANUARY 4, 2010.
Doctrinal Background
The Supreme Court held some time ago in Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409 (1976), that prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability for their advocative conduct in connection with trials. This immunity was based on the common law immunity background in 1871 (when section 1983 was enacted) and the important policy consideration of promoting independent decision-making by prosecutors. The Court later elaborated on prosecutorial immunity doctrine in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons , 509 U.S. 259 (1993), where it held that such immunity does not extend to a prosecutor’s conduct that is investigative in nature and that precedes the existence of probable cause; such conduct is protected only by qualified immunity. In so ruling, the Court applied what has come to be known as the functional approach to immunities under which it is not the person who is protected by absolute or qualified immunity but rather the function performed.
The Pottawattamie County Case
In this case, prosecutors were accused of manufacturing evidence in a murder case in order to falsely arrest, prosecute, try and convict the plaintiffs. The evidence allegedly manufactured included providing a coerced witness with false information, with the result that the witness’s testimony was later used at trial to convict the plaintiffs who were consequently imprisoned for several decades. Their convictions were eventually overturned because they were not informed about a possible alternate suspect. Plaintiffs then sued the prosecutors for damages under section 1983, alleging that their due process (and not Fourth Amendment) rights were violated in connection with their arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. Read the rest of this entry »
Affirmative Action
Background
Affirmative action involving race is a hot button topic and there may consequently be some student reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion of the issues involved. So I begin class by pointing out the analytical distinction between constitutionality and wisdom. A statute, for example, may be constitutional but still unwise (or immoral). On the other hand, a statute may be unconstitutional but still wise (and moral). The point is that students should feel free either to critique or to agree with the Supreme Court’s current approach to affirmative action as a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Of course, this distinction often breaks down in practice in affirmative action cases inasmuch as strict scrutiny is applied. After all, aren’t the inquiries into whether there is a compelling government interest, and whether the means are narrowly tailored, based in large part on the Court’s view of the wisdom of the particular affirmative action plan in question? Nevertheless, I find the analytical distinction useful pedagogically.
What Affirmative Action Is/Is Not: Getting to “No”
I begin with a series of simple hypotheticals involving claims of racial discrimination arising out of unsuccessful applications for public employment, where various plaintiffs are victorious and the courts order that they be given the jobs they applied for. I ask students whether these are affirmative action cases, to which the short and correct answer is “no.” Rather, these are cases in which constitutional violations are found and judicially remedied. But it takes some time to get to “no.”
In contrast, true equal protection affirmative action cases are those in which a governmental entity voluntarily adopts a plan involving higher education, public employment and the like, under which certain members of a racial minority are given a benefit while certain members of a racial majority are denied that benefit. Read the rest of this entry »
Nahmod Law 