Memphis Community School District v. Stachura
477 U.S. 299 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be based on compensation for actual, provable injuries resulting from the deprivation of a constitutional right, not on the abstract value or societal importance of the right that was violated.
Facts:
- Edward Stachura, a tenured seventh-grade life science teacher in Memphis, Michigan, taught a chapter on human reproduction using a School Board-approved textbook.
- As part of the instruction, Stachura showed his class pictures of his pregnant wife and two films on human growth and sexuality, which were provided by the County Health Department and approved by the school principal.
- Following complaints from parents based on inaccurate rumors about the content, a contentious open School Board meeting was held.
- Stachura was advised not to attend the meeting, where parents expressed the view that he should not be allowed to teach.
- The day after the meeting, school officials suspended Stachura with pay.
- The School Board later confirmed the suspension, stating an 'administration evaluation' was underway, although no such evaluation ever occurred.
- Stachura was reinstated the following fall after he initiated a lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Stachura sued the School District, Board of Education, administrators, and several parents in the U.S. District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The complaint alleged violations of his First Amendment right to academic freedom and his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that it could award compensatory damages for actual harm, punitive damages, and a third category of damages based on the 'value or importance' of the constitutional rights that were violated.
- The jury found the defendants liable, awarding $275,000 in compensatory damages and $46,000 in punitive damages.
- The District Court reduced the total award after granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for one defendant.
- The defendants (petitioners) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding there was ample proof of actual injury.
- The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, limited to the question of whether the jury instruction on damages for the value of a constitutional right was proper.
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorize an award of compensatory damages based on a jury's assessment of the abstract value or importance of a substantive constitutional right, independent of any actual injury suffered by the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. Section 1983 does not authorize damages based on the abstract value or importance of a constitutional right. The fundamental purpose of § 1983 damages is to compensate individuals for actual injuries caused by the deprivation of their constitutional rights, following the principles of common law torts. The Court's prior decision in Carey v. Piphus established that a plaintiff must prove actual injury to recover more than nominal damages, even for the violation of a right as fundamental as procedural due process. There is no two-tiered system of rights; damages for violations of both substantive and procedural rights must be tethered to provable harm, such as out-of-pocket loss, reputational damage, or emotional distress. Allowing damages based on the abstract 'value' of a right would be non-compensatory, speculative, and would permit juries to award arbitrary sums or punish unpopular defendants, which is inconsistent with the compensatory nature of § 1983.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No, the jury instructions were improper. While damages under § 1983 cannot be based on the abstract 'importance' of a constitutional right, the violation of a constitutional right can itself constitute a compensable injury in some circumstances. The Court's opinion should not be read to limit damages strictly to out-of-pocket loss or emotional suffering. For instance, the loss of an opportunity to engage in a First Amendment-protected activity is a tangible injury that can be compensated. The key distinction is that any damage award must be proportional to the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff, rather than based on speculation about the societal value of the right.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and extends the rule from Carey v. Piphus, clarifying that § 1983 damages are strictly compensatory for all constitutional violations, whether procedural or substantive. It effectively closes the door on plaintiffs seeking damages for the 'inherent value' of a right, thereby preventing speculative or punitive awards disguised as compensation. The ruling mandates that plaintiffs must connect the constitutional violation to a specific, provable harm—be it economic, emotional, or reputational—to recover substantial damages. This creates a more predictable and evidence-based framework for civil rights litigation, requiring a clear causal link between the illegal conduct and the plaintiff's injury.
Unlock the full brief for Memphis Community School District v. Stachura