qubstions piucsbltrn;d › justicepapers › jettdocs › ... · ii. c" the meat...
TRANSCRIPT
QUBSTIONS PIUCSBltrnD
aD bullbullI_I4M bullbull11 d4- _ W~ ~~~
cU1om eoaUwy to the reuB j~D tJ PNproetaa US 101 (1988)7
i
OPALL
NftP1I1IUlft lett
u
-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES J
I
OF ARGUMENT 1
diIC~llDa1~ OR the DU show that the arUIdUtkm fWaI pole to ~v_ eDlI~IOY~ UDder a Usc 11 A The polley or CU1oa- UlnalIt amp1~
from tbelaqup 4J f 1988 11 1 ~uDd 2 0riPa of the middotmiddotpoUc or cutGm
B Seetion 1988 did Dot
~UGD 1181 wu br the Ccmrr-st earlier
COD~I 11 ~ ~ ij fI 9 bull a -Ii bull ll q 1) 14 2
8 18
II
c
the meat UltlDleI1UGIua
A CoukIentkml of 1e_1~bullbullbullbullrequire of a bullbullperiot
B
C Policy arrumeDu fav N~~~~RaJIl_ra 1 of middotIKI1l~K M~~will furmiddot
tiler the radal dlMl1mlUliOD compe__ dril rtahu deprlvatiou aDd deteniDr abu_ of power 19
2 R~ rifw prorida bull clear euJ1r applied ltudard 80 The polld_ that favor nmiM Uabilit1 urader 1988 do Dot P ply to SeeUoD 1981 30 Other alterutt 81
Then wu evldenee which coaelude that Supel~tDdeftt bull poHcJmakermiddott with to of coache and 81
CONCLUSION 88
Iv
Adieb 1amp9amp a~~1~11 (11m1 Il It 1 t ol ~ 4 ill ~ ~ bullbull
lJGIIl w CiAp Gal 4 __
~UNlt_d8 LBdJd
liM~ tI w 411amp1 Uf1I-~1fIt 100 98 SCt 19OG 80 11
Cit 01 uaampbullbull tI 118 (Tex _ill 1) bull bull III bullbullbull Dshy 0 II III 111 Go bull it 11shy shy ~ I bull ill iii a Il ~ II iJ
nllUllr_ fA 142 (1948) ~ 4 bull lt10 ~ bull iii ~ shy lt) II
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
OPALL
NftP1I1IUlft lett
u
-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES J
I
OF ARGUMENT 1
diIC~llDa1~ OR the DU show that the arUIdUtkm fWaI pole to ~v_ eDlI~IOY~ UDder a Usc 11 A The polley or CU1oa- UlnalIt amp1~
from tbelaqup 4J f 1988 11 1 ~uDd 2 0riPa of the middotmiddotpoUc or cutGm
B Seetion 1988 did Dot
~UGD 1181 wu br the Ccmrr-st earlier
COD~I 11 ~ ~ ij fI 9 bull a -Ii bull ll q 1) 14 2
8 18
II
c
the meat UltlDleI1UGIua
A CoukIentkml of 1e_1~bullbullbullbullrequire of a bullbullperiot
B
C Policy arrumeDu fav N~~~~RaJIl_ra 1 of middotIKI1l~K M~~will furmiddot
tiler the radal dlMl1mlUliOD compe__ dril rtahu deprlvatiou aDd deteniDr abu_ of power 19
2 R~ rifw prorida bull clear euJ1r applied ltudard 80 The polld_ that favor nmiM Uabilit1 urader 1988 do Dot P ply to SeeUoD 1981 30 Other alterutt 81
Then wu evldenee which coaelude that Supel~tDdeftt bull poHcJmakermiddott with to of coache and 81
CONCLUSION 88
Iv
Adieb 1amp9amp a~~1~11 (11m1 Il It 1 t ol ~ 4 ill ~ ~ bullbull
lJGIIl w CiAp Gal 4 __
~UNlt_d8 LBdJd
liM~ tI w 411amp1 Uf1I-~1fIt 100 98 SCt 19OG 80 11
Cit 01 uaampbullbull tI 118 (Tex _ill 1) bull bull III bullbullbull Dshy 0 II III 111 Go bull it 11shy shy ~ I bull ill iii a Il ~ II iJ
nllUllr_ fA 142 (1948) ~ 4 bull lt10 ~ bull iii ~ shy lt) II
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES J
I
OF ARGUMENT 1
diIC~llDa1~ OR the DU show that the arUIdUtkm fWaI pole to ~v_ eDlI~IOY~ UDder a Usc 11 A The polley or CU1oa- UlnalIt amp1~
from tbelaqup 4J f 1988 11 1 ~uDd 2 0riPa of the middotmiddotpoUc or cutGm
B Seetion 1988 did Dot
~UGD 1181 wu br the Ccmrr-st earlier
COD~I 11 ~ ~ ij fI 9 bull a -Ii bull ll q 1) 14 2
8 18
II
c
the meat UltlDleI1UGIua
A CoukIentkml of 1e_1~bullbullbullbullrequire of a bullbullperiot
B
C Policy arrumeDu fav N~~~~RaJIl_ra 1 of middotIKI1l~K M~~will furmiddot
tiler the radal dlMl1mlUliOD compe__ dril rtahu deprlvatiou aDd deteniDr abu_ of power 19
2 R~ rifw prorida bull clear euJ1r applied ltudard 80 The polld_ that favor nmiM Uabilit1 urader 1988 do Dot P ply to SeeUoD 1981 30 Other alterutt 81
Then wu evldenee which coaelude that Supel~tDdeftt bull poHcJmakermiddott with to of coache and 81
CONCLUSION 88
Iv
Adieb 1amp9amp a~~1~11 (11m1 Il It 1 t ol ~ 4 ill ~ ~ bullbull
lJGIIl w CiAp Gal 4 __
~UNlt_d8 LBdJd
liM~ tI w 411amp1 Uf1I-~1fIt 100 98 SCt 19OG 80 11
Cit 01 uaampbullbull tI 118 (Tex _ill 1) bull bull III bullbullbull Dshy 0 II III 111 Go bull it 11shy shy ~ I bull ill iii a Il ~ II iJ
nllUllr_ fA 142 (1948) ~ 4 bull lt10 ~ bull iii ~ shy lt) II
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
II
c
the meat UltlDleI1UGIua
A CoukIentkml of 1e_1~bullbullbullbullrequire of a bullbullperiot
B
C Policy arrumeDu fav N~~~~RaJIl_ra 1 of middotIKI1l~K M~~will furmiddot
tiler the radal dlMl1mlUliOD compe__ dril rtahu deprlvatiou aDd deteniDr abu_ of power 19
2 R~ rifw prorida bull clear euJ1r applied ltudard 80 The polld_ that favor nmiM Uabilit1 urader 1988 do Dot P ply to SeeUoD 1981 30 Other alterutt 81
Then wu evldenee which coaelude that Supel~tDdeftt bull poHcJmakermiddott with to of coache and 81
CONCLUSION 88
Iv
Adieb 1amp9amp a~~1~11 (11m1 Il It 1 t ol ~ 4 ill ~ ~ bullbull
lJGIIl w CiAp Gal 4 __
~UNlt_d8 LBdJd
liM~ tI w 411amp1 Uf1I-~1fIt 100 98 SCt 19OG 80 11
Cit 01 uaampbullbull tI 118 (Tex _ill 1) bull bull III bullbullbull Dshy 0 II III 111 Go bull it 11shy shy ~ I bull ill iii a Il ~ II iJ
nllUllr_ fA 142 (1948) ~ 4 bull lt10 ~ bull iii ~ shy lt) II
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
Adieb 1amp9amp a~~1~11 (11m1 Il It 1 t ol ~ 4 ill ~ ~ bullbull
lJGIIl w CiAp Gal 4 __
~UNlt_d8 LBdJd
liM~ tI w 411amp1 Uf1I-~1fIt 100 98 SCt 19OG 80 11
Cit 01 uaampbullbull tI 118 (Tex _ill 1) bull bull III bullbullbull Dshy 0 II III 111 Go bull it 11shy shy ~ I bull ill iii a Il ~ II iJ
nllUllr_ fA 142 (1948) ~ 4 bull lt10 ~ bull iii ~ shy lt) II
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
Cues Parmiddot
Ct~ol Ofu 1raquo LaCo 1Mbullbull 110rld98tC6tb CIr ltM) 19
Citll 01Roa4 Roc 1raquo S_iC 68T SWoId 800 (Tex 1986 19
Cit 01 St Loi4 w PnqWomilf 108 SCt 915928 (1988 i 9 12 14
Cit 0 Wiea 1raquo Lew 88 SW2d 288 (Tex Ct App Fort Worth 1984 writ dismd) 29
CcmtnUi True v Cit 0 McAU 485 SWJd 804 (Tex 1971) 29
CoiAld tp C01plL 4 Wash CC 811 6 Fed Cu M6 1128) 19
Corpv CAN ~t ScAool DUt v Pe4ilk 109 SWId 700 (Tex App Corpu Christi 1986 no writ) t t- ~ JI bull bull It bull bull e bull bull 1J 8- bull til ~ bull bull ~ lt III bull bull 1 32bull
Crow ta Cit 0 Sa Atdcmio 2M SW2d 899 (Tex elv App Su Antonio 1956 no writ) 29
~ ta Cit 0 HoutoR 148 Tex 191 212 SWad 99l UMt) 29
[Nmt 0 Col-biG v Cmr 19 US 418 98 SCt 602 84 LEd2d 618 (1973) 21
Fielder ta CUt 108 SCt 2302 101 LEdld 123(1988) 29
GeeNl hW_g CcmCNCtor Aw ta PlwftMl 488 US 375 102 SCt 8141 78 LEd2d 885 (1982) 20
GreGt Amene FderaJ Sawg bull Loa A OR
V Now 442 U S 866 99 SCt 2345 60 LEdld 987(1979 bull 18
Gnfift ta BreCUftMg 408 US 88 104 91 SCt 1790 29 LEd2d 338 (1971) 24
Hogbullbull v ClObull 807 US 496 59 SCt 954 83 LEd 1418 (1939) 21
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
JoluOft w fI_ II sCt
J~ w A~ Cot 409t
88 SCt I188 10 LBad lIlt(1) Ill bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbull $ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull
LflCA ~ HoueAW ~ C0f7 401 UJI 91 SCt 1118 81 LBdJd G4 (1m 11 to
MiteA tI POI 407 us 1Ia 91 SCt 1161bull bull LBdld 101(1m) 80
~ 01 S~~ 416 858 LEdld 811 (1918 8 It
9 bull bull l bull 11 ill II It to ol 19 a 28 MMroe v hfptI 886 UJI 18181 Set 418
6 LBdld (11) 11 18t 18 80 MOON w CowIe 01 Alombullbull 412 Us
18 SCt 178amp bull LEdld 8M (1918) ~ IS
N eAA v Tari 109 4M (1988)
Oc~tGl Co v Cbullbull -97 M47 68 LEdld (1m) Otu v City OlU__RCe us
100 1898 U (1980) PflfnJU v Tekw 411 us
un SCt 190amp 88 LBdld GO (1981) PatC~IOft v CAdi Uw-
108 SCt 4UHll88) 14 Paul llGw 414 US 898
96 SCtl1M LEdJd 406 80
81 (1 26
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
Pare
Rohmn It W _Us ampM 98 ICt AmiddotUVA 81 LBdld 1M(1m) 19 30R_ v MetllMlfL us 160 98 se 415 (1918) 142327
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
v WiUimR 841 70 71 80t (1161) 1622 24
Wate tI Stel Wtnb OIIC4~W HOMHItef COMpmr 4 F2d 478 (7th Cir 1970) cen flnwf400 U S 911 (1910)
William fl Bu No No 8amp-2841 1988 WL 11amp6amp0 (8tb Cir med Dee 21 1988) (en baDe) bull 13
WittMl tJ 471 US 280 106 SCt 1938 86 L Ed2d 2545 (1985) 29
Wood tI StricldoRcL 420 US 308 95 SCt m d LEd2d 214 (1975) 26
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U CODstitution
14th Amendment 25 30 15th Amendment
STATUTES United States Code
18 USC sect 241 1624
sect 242 28 USC
t 1881 sect 1348 (3) 17 18
USC t 1981 6 8 11 26 27 28 30 31
sect 19b 1811
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
sect 1983 6 I 8 11 12 14 US 17 182122268081 sect 1986 11 sect 1988 927
Ftevised Statutes sect 5506 172324 sect 5807 23 24 25 sect 5808 16 17 23
Statute Civil Rigbts Act of April 9 1886
(e 8114 Stat 27) 7814bull 16192021 22t 23 24 25 27
Civil FLights Act of May 81 1870 (e 114 16 Stat 140) ~ 14151617
23 24 25 Civil Rights Act of April 20 1871
(e 114 17 Stat 13) 111215 17181920 Texas Education Code
sect 13351 sect 2326
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGbull 1ST SESS 1920
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
In The SUPREME COURT THE UNITED
October Term
No No214
NORMAN JETT
Petitioner
Y
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF
OPINIONS BELOW
initial Court of Appeall opinion reported 198 F 2d 748 and reprinted in the Appendix the Petition for Writ Certiorari (Pet App) The Circuits order on rehearin supplementing its initial nion il reported at F2d 1244 and at App 38AMA The opinion of United District C(urt the Northern Di~triet Division is unreported and printed
1
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
enutIGD _ 11 JUftIGMUOIl pun_t to USO I
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES natutel ud constitutional provilionl are
involved 1ftUta SCMbullbull ~outihdm TldrtettatD Am_dment FountaQ Amadment
BfMlUOIII 1 ud I) bull Fifteenth Ameadment
Ud Stag Code 18 U80 241 18 USC aa 28 U80 sect 1831 28 UsC 1M8 42 U8C 1988
USC 11981 UsC 1988
Rewd SCt (SeetiODI U07
1874) nd 1808
Sfa Civil Rigbts Act of 9 1888 Stat 21) the middotCivillUhtl Act of 1886tt
Civil Rirbtl Act of May 81 (e 18 Stat 140) the eEuforeemeut Act of 1870
Civil Rights Act of April 20 1811 (e 114 Stat tbe middotmiddotKu Klux KIn Act 1871
aboYit constitutional provisioDs and ltatutes are reprlDted in full in the Joint Appendb U J t App)
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
shi football Tr 3a1Il~1 RaHiDlI
Wkat PN1- t be Jet1~1 bull fall of 611i18_ -~ Scbool 11Il_
t
bad South ~tHIl
totallr _tided urpd lett to ~mft DNmllaq tbe nedbullbullu ftlhIIift fttnJllUCmI
bad Jatg nnN~M1~1 tbat maD of la1en could dards for coDe athlete
Todd reo_mllen-1I1 lmEl_lAteIY followiD the IllUft
for fai11D1 to pme p ___
u bawd rumor that lett POlle Soon afterward pva
bullbullIIU5pound evalution tbe in Jettl WIlDt
8
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
111 bd that Todd letttl 1IiN-
stated NUOU Wtdla DlNl4W1W App TheM bdiap QDalelG Circuit ud an DO loager mdilpute eAIII1 JLIIIIoIlrl-illiOVra
OlIO poIiei_ and DrlAlUe Under DISD lettmiddot removal u aWetie aan~lrl
bead coach No 1011 in DISD of
Trtl- had aDDPOvGIld DOD-- to deal witb teocM reUlipmeDht reUlipmeat
DCM eoneermn lItUIII~ GIr1~n Jt
DISD LiDul Wrirht duerlbed wansfers of athleUe ad eoaebu u a where up to him Wrirht had praeUeel~ to deal trusl It Appbullbull~ 70 ae appoiDt a puel to hear
matter and make a reeommeadaUon there could be an him App eo melther AVftV
Wribt made ruling ud there no appeal from dHilion to transfer an director or eoaeh
App 68 89--10
Superintendent 1IIIPlIlaquoIIIIII
upholds Todd Qw(~n ollowm tbe Mareh 15 meetlDg Todd met with
21 told Jett that since he ~eIIlIVfilMJ Dethio in he should
leaviD
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
tio_ lUDeuCIe 81tnNDU that lett had met Sampatmo that DO 1DV11i1Cm ducted Jt
Then Wrtrht IUDllllY
priDeipal ad that DO attlml)t tbe Illeptloa of dlampla1lllWUlUoD~
68 The ARIlmII~ab
Jett was Ieusiped the Hula Bapj __ DeIlIOOI
was told it 219-180 Jett
the IJWlllDelbullbull -IIDI DJmaclDai
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
aram took WriPt Jett that he would head chiD poIitioRs that mlIlDt eoaae UI~
leDII Mel told him WU UVcUlamp Dbullbullbull1a
and be While Jett showd Dot be to remain in the department year Rid Jett could ~punue any available poIiuon whieh he Further if Jett Dot recommended a coaching poaitkmt he would be _ipeel u a eluaroom teacher Jett decided that Wright did not iDtend to keep promi to rive him the
avaDable head coaching job ud filed luit 859 311-812
Subsequently a eoachiDl job did open up at Madison High Sehool bowever was not contacted reprding that position apparently because be had med suit Tr 317amp19451 611e22
On or about Aupst 1988 Jett received notice that be had uliped to Thomu JeffersoD High Sehool u v-elhman footbaWtraek coach 801-108 Jett resigned rather than accept this humiUating demotionTr 307-811
The remairdng 1IIuel JaU claimed leveral dvU rights violationl only three of
which are ItUI before the Court- First alleged that the decision to transfer him of his newspaper statemenu violated his First Amendment rilhts aDd gave rile to a cause of action 42 USC sect 1988 Next claimed that tbe decision to tranafer him because he white violated hil Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right apin giviD rile to a Section 1988 claim With regard to the racially motivated tranafer Jett also claimed a viola~ tion of 42 USC sect 1981
Todds liability under all three theories has established At issue here is only the liability DISD
I See App 7middot8 for disposition of other eiaims
6
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
U IJIIeI1
IftI8urht tat mteat of 0 wlM1dlmiddot ____
1981 The fonnillDer
DPnDAP 91amp1 to eGnsutae ~MtlC)n laDlUa of
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
COD
mut MII GimPl Wlmt dIa1
BMuAnbullbull tvad the poiQ or ~tatft eradll terms
uDUkel1 that ~ bad I pollq meat
_bullbull that I of the 1818 Aet ho e NQI8IiIIIttUt doeat
1 wallI7 Granat -121_ let aot 12
MoreoverentCial I t hIPl1 nKrictiYe ~IUR thlI NltrieUve Iapampp DOt mil DOl
otber of the 1811 let Mid from amp followl iDwad to _pole the lulUP
1De4~C DOlIeYor euatom lainmeDt Oft 1 ad Dee 00
ODe we conclude CoDINII did mtend to impose a upoRe) 01 ~t requirement ~UOD 1981 e tWD to tbe tuk of detendDiI jut hat did mtend AI it tum tben II dear iomiddot teat to our CUlUtaDeelLUWI1II
the Mm DaCIte
8
ID tbe Hrht of )milt ID 1886
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
Teau RaU~1t1 lupermtendeau can record aD1 ftlPlllel
school actually 01
9
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
m~ltPPlIwt TIle iMt of 1lDPMilllA the __
tried belrn UDWMl8IlJ tIM ut be retried of the poley
cUltom IeQIUIr1_4nt
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
11981
A poKq or ltOalf ftMIUINDllellt aPftIM
tbe of bull VIilUIV
MGltlOlll at 11
debitu to IUD1D01t act of ~DWU7 to ~ or~mbullbull munidpal em101bullbull
The JlOtIfOe court the 1811 aeDatel res-d holdtDl Le that the
Dot Ii Kable bull _ foeuMd OD ovbullbull I of 1811 atatutelrather tba bull 1 At __ tbe amedmeDt DIOlIKKI RepnRDtatfve whieb would
upon coot1 t city wbich ~PlUUB lOi8bt occurred 866 U 8 at n The Amend
ment wal defeated the MORfH concluded
11
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
of jmiddotpollcy requinmeat
In Part of 81MII tbe Court IMNIlU debe tbe Dewl reeoplHd it that ~1
mwdelpdtl euDot be beld 1988 OD bull atU It then for mulated tbe could be held nquinshymeBt 1amp at debatea erueial to Pan I of iVa eaIed UPOD 08 m Part bola tIM njeetioa N~ nor4 U 8 at 1 IT The played DO role iD formaltal the polley or requiNmat ~~ho Part of AlOftIlL the Court relied 8xcluivd7 OD tbelaqup of sect 1988 pUHd sect 1 of tbe Ku IOu IOu Act
1871 nad u loUo (Aja penOft -le UDder eolor of UJ law ltatute ordiDu lUIatieD cutem or StatebullbullAaU bullbullbjecft Of to
at 1 tbe Cowt~s) The Court wtote that tbilla liabUit I pvent tbatt under eelor of poliet ea to violate aotbert eoutitutioaal ~ at 89lbull
of Se Lo v 108 aCt 915 (1188) the Court amppm wrote
erueial term of tb statute tbat provide liability when a IOvnUleDt tsubjeetl (a perIOD] or
penon) to be lubjeeted to a deprivation of eoD~ 1iIVllliiIU rightsmiddotmiddot 108 (plurality)
12
of
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
courU elltoaMgt N4~taL 88-1814 __yen (ell bue)1 Yet lepp lINVtIl~ __11M the poUeJ or reqllt appean that replatioD ewltelll or _0-shy
Appareatl1 the Court quite litenllr The penonMgt tlht loal 1Omiddotat the phrue uDder color of erlv tute _dluee ~D eustom or uap 18 paDt upoHq ed the pbnM subject CAua to be lubjeeted requtru ual NlaUouhlp betwMU thil middotmiddotpoIlet or catomMgt OD tbe ODe hud ud the ututioul deprivatloD Ct0 w rtampe1 UI 80amp 81amp 101 SCt 1m lepaptnebtbe oftbe etat lAd v atr 0 SCt lin 1111 D 10 LEd Id 51 (1_
Tbu the pbnM UDd col of ur ItItue dmuee replatiOD cuatom or e ie _hIDucrudal to the middotpoUc1 or custom requirement tbaa tbe usubject caue to be lubJeetedtt laD Uofortuately thil -color law~I Iugu bu given otber meuings
_~ cie ofLitt Rock v 108 Ct U02 fl t~fR4 w~ V Butlu 2M 18th Cir INt (en hue
Cit oJ Liu Rock v 1100 1508bullbull Lmdlci Q (IHe VGCGa WIUlImtu (8th Cir 19)85) ea baac)
18
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
other 6 TIlII be why Court the phrae policy or cUltom U oppoud luetin actual Inp- of the miute Thil perhaps allO be wby wheD dileUUiDg actul lupap of statute Court bu emphasiaed the phrue ubject or eause to be subjected-shy
B Section 1988 did not lmeDd Section 1981 1 1981 WU Dot pasled by the 42nd
Congress but u earner CoDshy
In RtaJOft U McCnIt1It aT US 16896 SCt 288649 LEd2d (191laquo) the Court that 1981 originated u sect 1 of the Civil Ribts Act of AprD 9 1866 c 31 Stat 27 Ruoft diasent however moped Section 1981 originated~th 118 of the Enforeement Act of May 31 c114 18 Stat 144 m UB at 1M (White Jt dissenting) Whne court is pMently reconsidering RuftflOft (I the finaJ resolution that controversy can make DO difference Regudles of Section
bull In SfttWft 1988 eaHl the phraM color afty law ordinanee rQIWlIllon eUIampom or UAP COftlimpt~1 truted u the Ame tbmg II actioft rtqWrtd by tM Amendment Uited Smtel v 893 us 1811N D T SCt na us 267 laquo1980 4110 N U ~ 1SOt~ cus cited Cf v S H Co _ 15167 90 BCt 1588 2 LEd (1910) Compare t elMl with Mlaquomroe _ it wal that the poU_mD ftot De
color of liDee their AD rauaetmg home we contrary amp0 BoaAlaw US at CoWt this arpment bokim that (mJIu of poNe- by of state law made poIIible om beau WfOpr dot-bed with the authority of lta~ law AI aetion ~ color ate law
USbull at 154 cmieetl 1 Cia US __ 1081 85 Ut4u beeause ClUeap polieemen
miluM the iveD tbem by Kat law acted under law Mmudl um amplm_ eePlJUnl
not to their elOl)lOyer middotmiddot_10 Cf at N6 n 19 olitAVlIIIlllliL
bull S~t vno
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
origiaateci with the Conpeu m1810 t ~ puHd the Klux
already to use WftlM
2 Abaent fkldlP I1lNftelU l(Om08 ~ ~~D
cutomn NCI~wremlt
QUeue bullbullMI when CoDINH nlLeUliG _ft~
198amp which wu five an aft that MCtiOR 1981 UOJllarrHl municipalities be held liable mitted by its ID the asee policy 198 Til Fifth Ci1etdt eoocluded that wheD UOI bullbullbull D4Ul1t~ KIa lOaD Aet ill 1811 it mtDded to 1DCMmJ by impoam a IIipoUeJ or custom _ the already exiitiDl ltatute Sma Seetiu wu the boob arpaat aU the of urepeal bl impUtion GeneraU 18 aN not favored ad the Court wdforlBl reJ~MI them otber ealel lov01vml KtIM~Dlltnlctl( rights ltatutel
In JOM u AINtl B Ma an us$~a SCt 218620 LlUdld 1189 (1988 the Court whether
USC 19a which probibits in tbelale of houlml applies to private Seetion originated with 11 of Civil of at t 14 Sut 21 amd wu N-enacted four lean later by sect 18 of Enforcement Act of May 1810 c 16 Sut 892 U8 428 In the IIltenat the the Stat_ ratified 14th AmeDdmeDt ii of __ limited to Ultate action It Wal in JOfI that by reshyenacting the 1866 Act al part the 1810 Act (OOsrre11
15
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
11NlI1rPCPAlUt a Mte aetioDtt Nltl1t 488 The Com An1aellt
a_ of ~ lUll CODamiddotmiddotmiddotliOllDa GMUMl
exelbullbull BMlltRM CBeeruaa froa _Us~
MIe 188 Us (1118) two UUUlOIIu m )UidPI coupiriq DOt to COUllt YIRaII
ubullbullmoID Th ebarp wu brouPt UDGler
which rude It a crime for CODU~ middotmiddotto mJure OPPIeU threaten m
aUlea with intent to pNveat or hil WIIWtillA uel enjoymeDt of an right or pftlDep
~IINI~ to bim b the ConaUtution or lawl of tbe
JOAeIt there wu COIl hAd mtended to NIMa
mac) II Itapphd to v_m DUMa AD Act to repeal all 1utes N1atml
IIIUillllAlllllliiIA1l1118 bull bull Stat at Itrot it nIlellu~ieIIlY nlDMuea
Ramp1UH whicb exprellly 0_110
reDMI~KI ltatUtes Included I bull eptlll~ to OM f briber tftP_tJI
vtoll1iJr unlawful meanl (to) hindert _
OMDUi19 eiwn from votinS or
It latr R S HOi By the tim of 1I0a 19 of the CrimiMl Cod of M~b 4 1101 e 311
now USC 241 S~c ~NIl v TO 83 aCt 58115 LEd 1M
16
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
cun CC)D1~UtKJ the 01 mstIDJrtWUWUI -raoll~a1 htl aDd Kpropert1 bull to
pad1~ delI1~atlioDI of penoul nhu wwe C()vered 1811 KIa Klu Act ActIonl lDvolvml property
rirhumiddotmiddott on tbe other bud to under the
KavlMG StatH 10 ChapWr hveD eDtitled CIIimdNI All
Civil Rirbti of Cltileu ThuampwWl KevlMd Statl
amount m eGDtroVerl1 NCInlIMDt II dalatad in ~II ta)
17
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
had to mbullbull UA at DJMIMII
mtutel UM cota lulu to
r1IIllta privhplll or 1m mumti_ lIOldUt~lOal bldwUa property right olb~1M ODe would have to nuoIl that wbea it the 1811 iDteDded narrow the aeo of a lean 11_ u put of major civil Us MS The Court dtm the bImIUCIltlOD urefuiled) to pare M9
FmaUy the Court hu poeraD eODclude tbat modem civil ribtlltatutel ba tbepe of the Recoutruetiora era ltatutu Se GreGt AeriM FdefGl SGtmtgbull bull Loa v Nowomr Us 811 99 SCt 284111 1851 eo LEdld 981 (1911 Id 442 at 391 (White disMDtinr) Se -0 Sm U Dobb Hou hu 481 rad lotTl100 (lith Cirlt1U aDd Wetll v Wite Stl Worb OlfiCI~~ HIAIIltMIlilM VVc~lII-pGtay 417 Fad T8 484 (7th Cir 1910 911 (Uno
Tbee prmaple apply to our cue We camot aIIume tbat tbe 2nd CoDPUI mad a d-loa Impoee a upoiiey or e_tom requirement onto when it enaeted Section 1918 To conclude that 1M3 somebow ended Section 1981 __t have dear historical evideDce The hiltoriui eridenee tbat doe exilt bowever points iD tbe opposite direetlon
3 CODgNlI did Dot inteDd forSeetioD 1983 to ameDd 1981
The Fifth Circuit concluded did not intend impoae different tgt_IIIo
municipality on tbe federal alertedmiddot Pet App 29A However even if that 1 so it would not jutify a repeal by impUeation whieh leeD requires of repeal Even tbe Circwts rULGOlK
probably wrong
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
do ftltViillAI
1IIamp_UJJ ampt As the 1_debate DUN dl1IIdlP1_ ia~ to _are MPItilm __ dlaU
Dewl ~NI da8 ~ U_II
foUows
There un be DO civil lea or _~ amon thelDbabltuti of U1 State TwritorJ of Uded State of Nee eolor or prevlou eoaditioa of dayen~ babltaDts of eveQ raft ud ~- WliR018 ftldftlldl
to any prevlou of daltAPl
tar1 HlYitude exee_ban bave tbe ptal~t
tram to be ftm1I~taa
bwit Dllr4mUlelil eue ud penooal lWftnaPlIV ampDd to the full benefit of an for IMurity of penou be lubjeet to like ampDd to DODe
other law IoU custom to the eontnI~y ~l)twltbll1iUidlajl
ConI 89tb CoD Durin enlum debate QUetIOllll wmiddot rNBlIKI ec~Dettrn ing tbe of tbe Dftl_ -_nl
The-
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
to fuDdameDtal rirbtl it OppoDeDtI bowev feared It mih aI rilhtl iMludm he ht tov
Th after Sen Trumbd had equted civil rirhtl ud immwUd_ wilh ~funtal rlchtl 14bull bull 4-48 the fo1lowID exebup plaee
McDOUGALL Do I uadenWDd that it is Dot dalped to mvolve the queltion of political rilhtl MR TRUMBULL This bW hu nothiDg to do with the poIWeal rirhtl or ItatUI ofpri_ It II confiD ed exclusively to tbeir civil rlchts such as appermiddot taiD to ever free mu
Idbull bull8 Opponents were not convineed b Senator Trumshybulls usuruces however Senator SaulsbUl) drew the distinction between middotmiddotrilhts which we derive from natwe ampDd rights whieb we derive from IOvernmenl Itt 4n Be went on to note that -1t)be riht to v is DOt a natwal rilht 14 418 He then read the civil rirhts ud im munlties laD ud remarked that the question II Dot what (SeD TrumbWl) meus but what the courts wm the law meus 1ft 418 Sbullbull cWo 1ft lilT 1161
Eventull there wu a compromise On the eve of final palup the bW wu amended to delete the reference to Ucivil rilhts or immunities Itt 18111aea See abo aeunal BW COtatNctor A v p 4U US 875 888 D 15 101 SCt 8141 8149 78 LBdld 885 (1982) Thil left sect 1 u protecting a lpedfic Jist of enumerated rigbts wbich CODIN- viewed as natwaJ rigbts ell
Five 7ear1 later wben Congre_ dnfted sect 1 of tbe Ku Klux Klo Act It modeled it after sect aof the 1866 Act which read as foOowl
Tbat ampD7 penon whot under color of 07 law ltatute ordinance regwation or custom Ihall lubject or cause to be lubjeeted any inhabitaDt of aDY State or Territory to the deprivation ofy rigAt e~d by tAil act IhaD be deemed gunmiddot ty of a mildemeaDor
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
laquo114 b1 eDum that IUINajM
tbe 11111amp11 other Iamoat
W Knft
languare of aeeacm
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
Againe we examine the spMifte languap of sect 2 of the 1_ Act
That any penon wholl wi cclo 0 a lAw lltoe-te ~~ or cuW bject Of eaue to b bull bullujected mbabitut of any State or Territory to the deprivaUoD of illY rigbt aeewed by th1l act bullbullbull shall be deemed pilty of a mildemeaDOr
c 114 14 Stat 17 sect 2 (emph added Obviously the em phamed I_pap comprises the cru termsmiddot from whicb tbe MouU Court bdwnd the policy or custom rt shyquirement See Put IAI above Yet there is a vast dtfmiddot ferenee between sect I of the 1868 Act ad the modern Section 1983 The former was a erimiDailtatute the diNct IllCGltor of the modern 18 UsC sect laal Since the nof criminal liability of a ~ity was unlmowD at the time it Reml UDUkey that the 89th ConI_ had oy Idnd of policy or cutom~ requirement m mmd wben it enacted II of the 1888 Act
If the Court apen then th1l part of the amprpmeDt Deed not contmue SIDee the policy or eutom requinmeDt ariles from the 611cnlCiIJ terms of sect 111amp ad mea Conshygrell could not have meat policy or cutom at the only place where it uled thOle middotmiddotCIueiIJ telml In the 1881 Act then Conlsl could not have mtended to impose a policy or custom t9 requirement oywhere m that ltatute
If on the other hand we _ume that by lneludiDl the crucial terms In sect I of the 1866 Act CongNII did Intend to impose a policy or custom requiremeDt on tAGt MCtlon it doel faot foUow that luch a requirement should be read iDshyto sect 1 as well Indeed itl more plaalble to CODelude that ConlNlI did ftCt intend to impose such a requirement on sect 1 or on any other part of the IBM Act except for sect 2
The restrictiv lanluae of12 ltuds in Iharp CODtrast to the rest of the IBM Act Neither the phrue a6colol of any law bull statute ordinance regulation or euItom nor the words Hsubjoct or caule to be subjected ue found in any
18 Su SCNWI v Ufiitd St4fll 825 US 91bullbullbull 85 aCt 1081 n LEd 1495 1laquoS2 ALR 1880 UN5t Uftitftd Statll v 341 at 83 and CIguie 813 US at m n 10
22
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
of tbe lectiWI tbe abaeDee of 8ub~tit tbe tact that the middot~CCI_ef lilatotla_
ApiB 409 which COIt_ ~_D aev from sect 1 of tlae 1888 Act III ~l_I~thlltlloftbe reub private the llAlilM 14bullbullG beeD mteDded to PA~~R atlt11kdft
muell of I wowd 424 The Court mItra and empbubiDr the eolor 424 n 31 SiDce the middoteolor of law laDruap prent 2 but not sect 1 COIlINI mut bave mteDded for sect 1 reach more thu conduct committed 4teolor of law ie private CODaUt~
Congrea omi~~ed the color of law ud subject or cause to be lubjHtedt
language from 6 of the uma Act wbieb imposed criminal penalties on eaD1 penoa who shaU knowml1 ud wWfuU obstruct hinder or pnveDt the arshyrest of a perIOn cbarred with violatiD the statute c Stat 28 16
Whne we find DO case construmg sect 8 botb it and sect t were carried forward to the 1870 Act l
bull Tbere t 1 T sect 2 of the 1866 Act) contains tbe middotmiddotcolor of law and subject or eause to be subjected lanruare while 11 (re-enactmr sect 6 of tbe 1866 Act) still appUes to aD1 penon e 114 18 Stat 142 sect 11 144 sect 17 Moreover the 1870 Act contains vera new sectioDs whieh like sect 11 im criminal peaalties on aDY perIOD or persoDs These are sectsect 5 Dd 6 e 114 16 Stat 141 whieh became sectsect 5506 5507 Dd 5608 the Revised Statutes
I BeUmr in mind of course the ambiguoul nature the color of law IDlUap See footnote 4 above
14 Thil part of the arpment fa particularly impoFtUt if the RvfMI dllHnt Ihould prevan Under that 1981 8IOse from 16 of the 1870 Act Ind not sect 1 of the 1886 Act Rnyoft 421 USbull at
(White J dilsenting)
28
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
iDjwe 8Dm Ulfe8te8 teDt pnbullbullet any riPt or Dftilelre bull wIG Con stitution oriIbW venin of 18 USC bull Sete u
841 Us TGII at LEd 168 ad it hu bee bull t1~ that f reaehel
private CODduet 5-18 (plunlit 1amp t8 IDoQrlu Jilt CODavrlDlr)
ApiA thil depends OD tH Dee of tbe colshyor of law 18 SiDa oder IftHUmiddot
01 law an 11 oftbe 1m Iaof 1866 Act it fol1ows that priDapal Purpoll of18 UDUke 111 wu to NMh privati aetkm rathtMD omn of a Statemiddotmiddot 341 US at Ttl (plwUt s~ v lfN~IffiJft4ItM t03 Us 81 104 388 (1971) then ateci
Fmant we nota ~ 5 the 1810 Act (amp8e 1106 5(7) wldeb also apply to ~middotUl1 penon TIl netionl were pused for the lab bellment wbleb proshyrid tbat tlhe ribt of Citluu of the UDited Statu to lot shall Dot be daDied abridpd b eM StflJe or b D on of ra color or previous ~RjttR of lervitudett Camphull added
In JOfIA tie BotmtlGftt 190 Us 18 SCt 61S 979 (1(108) the Court conldaNd brourht uDder 5 of tb 1810 ltatute (U whlcb made OntliDM for middotmiddotU1 penonmiddot -prevent CODtrol or timidate MY perlOn from the ririlt of ferae to whom firilt II seeured or guaranteed by [15th Amendment) e Stat 141 sect
Court the 15th AmeDdment u the authority to I~KalltllU
_ middotmiddotby the United Statel or any ltate a reQwrtmelDt the aeUon
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
IOalteGm it
they ampnil Us WftPl1A tbat an m aN DOt ill the -tOD wrote There DO room for ___lOllu_S v Ra U8 aPIlJftif 11ftll
of the 1810 Act 1108) OIl IImIR ads W Mv _11 IAI tbat the -DeY eultom
qwnmeDt Items HlAlM MMaIR -fIIiftIft1AJ hi
herehow that CoDsnu au or b1 me111ldbbullbullIl~ -nlftlal
In 2 of Aet then its DOt to mel_ I 1 or uy oth_ of tIM 1888 Aet meal UdliaelU intended that 1 1981-would e CODltam poUey or custom nqmnmeat
W allO DtM tbe UteralrudiDr pveD the IMmlll volved th_ eGalilMDt with the maam ReeoDIWUetioD era civil rightl Rat mat be pveD IWP u broad lulup USt at 481 quotill Utd StGCe v ~ 8t8 US 181 at 801 86 S Ct
U) LEdJd 7 (1980) To erudal t~Mmiddotmiddot sect 1 of 1866 Act they limply do Dot AppeU there
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
mfQII~~~
The rme of offen the moat ltudard
lD Pan I demoDdnted did Dot intend to 1m a MORall KpollcJ requirement Seeticm 1981 Now we IDqWre as to what CollIN- did mshytend
CODlidentiou legialative Intent reshyquire impolitioD of a rbullbullpotnor tudard
Legislative mtent caD be Coqrea9 aDenee This wu the taken the hctioa 1ta cues volviar Then althoup tbeltatuie Inent OD the immUDitJ i_u~ the Com inferrM lesillUe intent
tbe ~faet tbat in the Jear 1871 queRiou of lqillative qd judldallmmulty wve viewed principlelt Pienft v 888 us M SCt 1111 18 LEdld 288 (1961) immunity The Court to believe that CnlT8u middotmiddotwGuld implap a tradition wen srOUDd-
hlItoIJ nuoD rihout meationinl in the laDIUP of the statute v BftllMlAove 841 US 881 316 71 SCt 783 96 1019 (1961) Qelillative immuuity)II On the other hud Com found middot110 _ w_
c tion qualified pod faitb immuity for municipal corporamiddot tions and tbul refused to impoa it 1) Cit olftshydcpeftdftet 446 e22688 100 SCt 1398 83 LEd2d 878 (1980)
cWo ScAllver t BAGGe LEd laquo1974raquo Wood u 5M~~NI 4S 21 (l91I)ud u Paec~Atlm tCt tN (1116)
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
familiar rule demoamated b (Steeu J CUD~tmllfmiddot plord Part I B Lepl Del in tiOD 1988 ud the GlllIeDt LJIIIIIIJnIf ecUIG
of the statute nm mtauers B 42 1988 compel adoption
~~jR~~r~ IeeODd of iDquirJ aelmowled the fact that
ftPi catlin of acUoD under SeetioDII181 ud Ita Dot arise tbe ex laD_of in Ballva w LiCtamp H_ P U8 24 LEdJd (lilt tbe Court beld m 01 a ltatutory Impbullbull the eDRelmee aDd appropriate remedleaId at 189It Stdliva went OD that fuhlonma private NillleGlY
8eetloM 1981 middotboth leden ud ltat damagel lila utmud wbleheer better the polide expreued ill the federal 898 US at 140 In IUPpan of itl approaeh elted a u 8C _ which direetl diltriet court toO their jurisdJemiddot
II m~1 PttampJWOtFliIc 108 N1111b11Vttlllllll
for thAI p~ oW PetWoD p
8 amp Joe v II UIRI4BiI_
t JOlUM V ~_~
(1918)( CA~l mtesCt
1amp110 upe that 11 aM UdUDI
8 of ~h 1_ Npts A wbieb DftlItIgtidH
of tbe baD have bullbullbull Diu ~Timmampl armm DIlmIIIGDIII who are auld
MCUO of this 441 Us n bull (PoweU ment however that JIlImlMlID
baNd upon the aUM mMlem venlon of 8 of
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
tion t9 enforce the civil rigbts laws in eonformity with the laws of the United Stats far as such laws are suitable to euTy the same into effect but all cues wheN they are not adapted to tbe object or are deficient in til provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against ~h law t the eommon law as modified and changed )y tbe constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court baving jurisdiction of such civil and criminal eampUse is held
far as the same not inconsistent with the COD
stitution and laws of the United States shall be extended to ana govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the eaUH bullbullbull
After Svlli~ the Court applied Section 1988 to hold that questions of limitations under Section 1981 are to be goveroned by middotmiddotappropriate state law Joluow U Roaway Erprebullbull AgeftC 421 US 484 46295 SCt1716 LEd2d 295 (1915) The Court cautioned bowever that middotmiddoteonsiderashytions of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal polley underlying the cause of action under eonsideration 421 US at 466
This was also the approach in Moor v Cotlty 0 AIometia 411 US 698 98 SCt 1785 LEd2d 598 (1978) where the Court refused to allow a county to be beld liable under Seetion 1988 for the constitutional torts its Ineriff While state law expressly allowed cOUDtin to be held liable for the civil rights violatioDs this feature eould not be ineormiddot pltlrated into Section 1988 since the result would be than consistent with Monroe v PaJH 411 US at 706 The Moor Court reasoned that because of the MOftroe decision its ease was ha wholly different cue from those in which lacking any dear expression of congressional will we bave been caned upon to decide wbether it is appropriate to look to state law or to fubion a single federal rwe in order to fill the interstices of federal law Id 411 US9 at 701 D 12
Of course in our case there is DO clear expression ot ~on~ 81eliooal wU As showed in MOftdl upoUcy or custom requ~ement inapPOSite to 1981 Til the Court il perfectly free to look to state or to fashion
28
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
U a amll_ federal rule tt law uheattatmrJ to 1riM ia ~I a amle -lni IUlMlIlrG
the Court mut defw to _I_e v~ Pipit 48amp US LEd 2d _ (1m
C favor adoption N~1t ~ standard
Whatever eo it Court will ultimately have addreu poliey impUeationl deeilkm
1 A rwe of wm fur ther the raelal
deprivatioDI power
dvO
poliey behiDd 1981 after rediD JOfte poUd of eoIlllMtDHI~D ud deterreD are cl0M11 related have explored leqtb m
Oimitadoiwh JIIIIiMf
bull (1) UhDiI~_) LEd2d un -1hIIIOV
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
2bullbull~metja n~r pro~ dear HIlly alttlbKllepllWlClUG __ 1_ Htipatl are ltill
elD ltate of Prayrottaik 108 SCt tI Fact ~lut 89 LEdld 816 (lt1U Of the DO choice lD deekbr IfInea liD the lupap of 1188 repreHntl a middotmiddotdear expreukm of CoD~1l bullbull BRe however theN DO such Imperative The Court 11 writiDr OD III clean Ilate adt for over a DtV1 ~at nprriof hu pro-shyvtded bull aimple widel undeniood euil applied rwe of law
The polide that favor reltrietiDr liability UDder SeetiOD 1988 do Dot apply to Beetion
In middotntury linea the SillMgAt~Bou Cu the urirhtl privnl ad immunitieMeUNd by the Coutltu tiOD have expuded tremendoulJ Th Court widen ad the HOpe of Section 1_ by ~r eoutltutionll rigbtl that were unheard of In 1871 PNprotaiit 108 SCt
m The vque lup of Section 1_ provided no
ulopeal ltoppml placet t and the Court hu becomellarmed
that Section 1983 mirbt become I font of tort law where Uevery leraD eopllable injU1 whieb may have been inmiddot meted by a lltate offieial aetiDl ad color lawmiddot eltabUsbl-J a violation tbe Fourteenth Amadmat Pew w Dow1 424 US 698 18 S Ct 115amp 47 405 (191laquon wo U Ts 481 US 521 54amp-588 101 SCt 1908 68 LEd2d dO (1981) (PoweU J concurring)
III ampI _ Us 861-8 w Stz CAdmovna cotiu At _ Ust 81111 SCt~ 1_ LBdld 819 Mice 4t 10 toT Us 91 leLI1S 12 LEdad 105 nm) at mRohfUft w Usbull at
lGeamplWtR4M _ 418 lOG N 11 LEd2d at 18
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
to by a lorbllto)~bullbull IN-
~ altaP1matilyenM
Ift dupite ow U1IUMeDtL liDe acmewhere aBOR nt_1M IGretMW PetitioDt p ITt for tiler armPfta~dl m There wu evidea_ the
elude that SuperhlteadeDt ~poUCJ1Dur with reprd to trIla81re aWetie dlreeton
Once the ref_ to hctiOD 1881 are removed the QuetieD Preieatedtl b1 II _Ily UIWred w Ole 01 SCt amp~ampt 1_89 LBdtd 411 (1tn teaehM thu would DOt be liable UDder 1888 wu 15IIl~ODt Wlllrii_h+
om ebarpd tranden of couh Md atblede GIrl- not a poIeymakv u the Questkm ne_ltM OIlbullbullbull obvioul1 the district wowd DOt be WMJIIe
Of eoune thllil euctl1 the of AppWl Aid The Fifth held the iDltrUedcm coocenWll muicipalliabillty was deftdeat It did DOt ltat that tbe city could be bound tbe prUleiPampi dent only If wu bull aell1plampUlG I~~~I 111m0ft1iY Pet App 11A~ Tbe CUlc~UllnOD Wright exclullve authority to make 1I11ilf81IA
dividuJ traDal dedlloDa would Dot ale lubject the DISD to nlpoDlibility bull he authorit1 witb rupeet to DISD polkJ Pet App 28A (mpb iD OftIrmau
The obvioully Wrirht wu the offieial elt-pel with 1U4IUi~ OOB41Y tralmaf4ltrl The Court ill Citol w SCt 118 924985 (1988) uid that this II a QUKiltD 1w but CaD oftly UI 80 far
It Tht foUowml IIDt wu omitted unHviewable aut~l)ruY
31
108
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
hu
aOIu1~IY no NOllUl1M
Jt App 65 0 (plvlit) And of tftU1PampA_
teutve Ollleer of the IClIIOOI dtdptllllt
Frankl ittl dlfftcult to how much stronger the evidence could be for an relOlutioD prelly deleratinr pollcymakinl power to That evt~leDlee on point fuDy developed come
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222
ftoavpri Peak aM before nacltII p~ WriPtwuaP_~BUt9
tbat opponalt1 wbee CONCLUSION
The Court shoulJ reeover1 apia ft lJeeucm tbe showd be hmdded for ~MI AIMlIAVlAAlt
sUUetiODS U wu dampfie Pmprotlti1 108 SCtbullbull at 928
RupeetfWly submitted
FBANK vuftiiII
FRANK ampout GOETZ
Bmt ODw GDetrap Goetz
1400 West Abram ArliDpoD Texas 78018 (817) 1middot2222