Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Supreme Court of United States
545 U.S. 748 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual holding a state-law domestic violence restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the enforcement of that order by the police. Therefore, the Due Process Clause is not violated by police failure to enforce such an order, even where state law uses mandatory language like "shall arrest."

Facts:

A Colorado state court issued a permanent restraining order against Simon Gonzales at the request of his estranged wife, Jessica Gonzales.
The order commanded Simon Gonzales not to disturb the peace of Jessica or their three daughters and to remain 100 yards from the family home.
The pre-printed text on the back of the order stated that law enforcement "shall use every reasonable means to enforce" the order and "shall arrest" a person when there is probable cause of a violation.
On the evening of June 22, 1999, Simon Gonzales took the three daughters from the family home in violation of the order.
Jessica Gonzales repeatedly contacted the Castle Rock Police Department between 7:30 p.m. and 12:50 a.m., informing them of the violation and requesting enforcement.
The police officers refused to take immediate action, instructing her to wait and see if her husband would return the children.
At approximately 3:20 a.m., Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station and opened fire; police shot and killed him.
The bodies of the three daughters, whom Simon Gonzales had murdered, were discovered inside his truck.

Procedural Posture:

Jessica Gonzales filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town of Castle Rock in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The District Court granted the town's motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint failed to state a claim for a procedural or substantive due process violation.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim but reversed on the procedural due process claim, finding Gonzales had a cognizable property interest.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and, in a divided decision, again held that Gonzales had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order have a constitutionally protected property interest in its enforcement for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No, an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in its enforcement. A benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials have discretion in granting or denying it. Despite the Colorado statute's use of mandatory language like "shall arrest," a well-established tradition of police discretion coexists with such statutes. This language is not a strong enough indication from the legislature to overcome the deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion. Furthermore, the alleged entitlement is too indeterminate, as the means of enforcement are not clearly defined, and seeking a warrant is an entitlement to a procedure, not a substantive right. Finally, the benefit is indirect; the enforcement of criminal law serves the public at large, not a specific individual, and does not resemble a traditional property interest like those recognized in the Court's prior government-benefit cases.

Concurring - Justice Souter

No, Jessica Gonzales has not shown a violation of a protected property interest. The claim fails because Gonzales is asserting a property interest in a state-mandated process itself, rather than a substantive state-law entitlement that the process is meant to protect. The Due Process Clause protects substantive interests, but it does not create a property right in a state's procedural rules. To recognize Gonzales's claim would collapse the distinction between property and procedure and would improperly 'federalize every mandatory state-law direction to executive officers.'

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes, the restraining order created a protected property interest in its enforcement. The majority improperly ignores the specific context of domestic violence legislation, which created 'mandatory arrest' statutes precisely to eliminate the police discretion that had led to the underenforcement of such orders. The Colorado statute was enacted for the benefit of a narrow class of persons—beneficiaries of restraining orders—and the order itself was specifically intended to protect Gonzales and her children. This state-created right to police assistance is a government service comparable to other benefits the Court has recognized as property interests, such as public education or utility services, and she justifiably relied on that state guarantee.

Analysis:

This decision significantly limits the scope of procedural due process by reinforcing the high bar for what constitutes a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to a government benefit. It solidifies the principle from DeShaney that the Constitution does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from private violence, even when a court order and a statute with mandatory language are in place. The ruling preserves the broad, traditional discretion of police officers, making it extremely difficult for individuals to bring federal § 1983 claims against police for failure to enforce restraining orders. The case directs that remedies for such failures lie in state tort law or the political process, not in the federal Constitution.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature