Rizzo v. Goode

Last updated
Rizzo v. Goode
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 11, 1975
Decided January 21, 1976
Full case nameRizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al. v. Goode, et al.
Citations423 U.S. 362 ( more )
96 S. Ct. 598; 46 L. Ed. 2d 561; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 42
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell
DissentBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a prophylactic injunction against non-culpable state executive officials was an overbroad interference by the Federal Courts in the state executive branches. In doing so, the court created a limit on the federal injunctive power in matters of state agency internal affairs. [1]

Contents

Background

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs sued a number of Philadelphia officials in a § 1983 suit, [2] charging that the police department had engaged in a "pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment by police officers." [3] John P. Fullam ordered the defendants, who were supervisors of the Philadelphia Police Department, to submit a "comprehensive program" for the Court's approval, in order to effectively deal with civilian complaints. [4] The decision was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [5]

At the Supreme Court

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal ruling, holding that the case or controversy Article III requirement was lacking, and the lower courts had exceeded their authority under 42 U.S.C.   § 1983. In discussing the latter, Justice Rehnquist (as he then was) explained that:

  1. The District Court's reliance on a statistical pattern to justify its action could not be considered to be the same as the active conduct that had been present in cases such as Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization , 307 U.S. 496 (1939) or Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974).
  2. Equitable relief was not available, unlike in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education , 402 U.S. 1 (1971), as the responsible authorities were not found to have played an affirmative part in any unconstitutional deprivations.
  3. Important principles of federalism militate against the proposition that federal equity power should fashion prophylactic procedures designed to minimize misconduct by a handful of state employees.

The Supreme Court cast the case as "a heated dispute between individual citizens and certain policemen ... [that] has evolved into an attempt by the federal judiciary to resolve a 'controversy' between the entire citizenry of Philadelphia and the petitioning elected and appointed officials over what steps might, in the Court of Appeals' words, '[appear] to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.'" [6] The court - "express[ing] grave doubts about the justiciability" of the case [7] - held that "the individual respondents' claim to 'real and immediate' injury rests not upon what the named petitioners might do to them in the future -- such as set a bond on the basis of race -- but upon what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman's perception of departmental disciplinary procedures. This hypothesis is even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O'Shea [8] to warrant invocation of federal jurisdiction. Thus, insofar as the individual respondents were concerned, we think they lacked [standing]." [9]

Moreover, "appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief," the court said; "[w]here, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is attacked, federal courts must be constantly mindful of the "special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law." [10] In such a setting, "principles of equity ... militate heavily against the grant of an injunction except in the most extraordinary circumstances." [11]

Aftermath

In 1978, the High Court declared in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York that Rizzo "decided that the mere right to control, without any control or direction having been exercised and without any failure to supervise, is not enough to support § 1983 liability." [12] When read together, the two cases support the proposition that §1983 supervisory liability cannot be based on respondeat superior . [13]

Rizzo was cited in the later Supreme Court ruling in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, [14] a significant case in United States constitutional law which held that state officials enjoy immunity from suit on the basis of state law claims in federal court. Rizzo's use of the doctrine of equitable restraint, [lower-alpha 1] as used in Pennhurst, has been questioned as to whether it can be justified. [16]

See also

Further reading

Notes

  1. ↑ originally formulated in Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971) [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court decision on the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ann Althouse</span> American law professor and blogger

Ann Althouse is an American law professor and blogger.

Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should issue.

Disgorgement is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the act of giving up something on demand or by legal compulsion."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Raymond J. Broderick</span> American judge

Raymond Joseph "Ray" Broderick was an American jurist and politician from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 24th Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania from 1967 to 1971 and as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pennhurst State School and Hospital</span> Hospital in Pennsylvania, United States

Pennhurst State School and Hospital, originally known as the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution for the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic was an institution for mentally and physically disabled individuals of Southeastern Pennsylvania located in Spring City. After 79 years of controversy, it closed on December 9, 1987.

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees. The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights. § 1983 had previously been a relatively obscure and little-used statute, but since Monroe it has become a central part of United States civil rights law. In other words, police and cities can be sued.

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape in holding that a local government is indeed a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. Additionally, the Court did not hold that §1983 claims against municipal entities must be based on implementation of a policy or custom.

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Congress' power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states.

Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified one of the requirements for imposing liability on a municipality for violations of a federal right, in lawsuits brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified a previous case, Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), and established that municipalities can be held liable even for a single decision that is improperly made.

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering state officials to obey state law.

United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. The Act is stated by its opponents to go against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which bans states from regulating abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Althouse 1987, pp. 1528–1529.
  2. ↑ Civil Rights Act of 1871, Pub.L.   42–22 , 17  Stat.   13 , enacted April 26, 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C.   §§ 1983 – 1986
  3. ↑ 423 U.S. at 366.
  4. ↑ COPPAR v. Rizzo, 357F.Supp.1289 , 1320–1321(E.D. Pa.1973).
  5. ↑ Goode v. Rizzo, 506F.2d542 (3d Cir.1974).
  6. ↑ 423 U.S. at 371.
  7. ↑ Althouse 1987, p. 1530.
  8. ↑ O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974)
  9. ↑ 423 U.S. at 372.
  10. ↑ 423 U.S. at 378-9.
  11. ↑ 423 U.S. at 379.
  12. ↑ Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), at fn. 58
  13. ↑ Schwartz, Martin A.; Kirklin, John E. (2013). Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. pp. 7–283. ISBN   978-0-7355-3872-6.
  14. ↑ Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman , 451 U.S. 1 (1981)
  15. ↑ Althouse 1987, p. 1531.
  16. ↑ Althouse 1987, pp. 1531–1537.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.