Monroe v. Pape
365 U.S. 167 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state official acts "under color of" state law for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when misusing power possessed by virtue of state law, even if the official's actions directly violate that state's laws. However, a municipal corporation is not a "person" subject to liability under this statute.
Facts:
- In the early morning, 13 Chicago police officers, who did not have a search or arrest warrant, broke into the home of the Monroe family.
- The officers forced Mr. and Mrs. Monroe out of bed and made them stand naked in the living room.
- The officers proceeded to ransack every room in the house, emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers.
- Following the search, the officers arrested Mr. Monroe and took him to the police station.
- Mr. Monroe was detained for 10 hours and interrogated about a murder.
- During his detention, he was not taken before a magistrate, nor was he permitted to call his family or an attorney.
- After 10 hours, Mr. Monroe was released without any criminal charges being filed against him.
Procedural Posture:
- The Monroe family sued 13 Chicago police officers and the City of Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Acts.
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The Monroes (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The Monroes (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 the phrase "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage" in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 encompass actions taken by a state official that are in violation of state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the phrase 'under color of' state law encompasses actions taken by a state official that are in violation of state law. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law. The legislative history of the Ku Klux Act of 1871, from which § 1983 is derived, shows that Congress intended to provide a federal remedy against the deprivation of constitutional rights, even when state remedies were theoretically available. This federal remedy is supplementary to any state remedy and does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state options first. However, the legislative history also shows a clear congressional intent to exclude municipal corporations from liability, as evidenced by the rejection of the Sherman amendment which would have imposed such liability. Therefore, while the police officers can be sued, the City of Chicago cannot be held liable as it is not a 'person' under the statute.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the phrase 'under color of' state law encompasses actions taken by a state official that are in violation of state law. While the legislative history is ambiguous, the principle of stare decisis compels adherence to the Court's prior interpretations in cases like United States v. Classic and Screws v. United States. Those cases established that an official's abuse of their state-given authority constitutes action 'under color of law.' Departing from this precedent would require overwhelming evidence from the legislative history that the Court previously misapprehended Congress's intent, and such evidence is not present here. Furthermore, Congress likely viewed the deprivation of a constitutional right as a more serious injury than a common state tort, thus justifying a distinct federal remedy regardless of whether the official's act was authorized or unauthorized by state law.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, the phrase 'under color of' state law does not encompass actions taken by a state official that are in violation of state law. The Court's interpretation improperly extends federal jurisdiction into the traditional realm of state tort law, upsetting the principles of federalism. A thorough review of the legislative history indicates that § 1983 was intended to provide a remedy only against unconstitutional acts that were sanctioned by a state's 'statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.' The statute was designed to address state-sanctioned wrongs or situations where state remedies were systematically unavailable in practice, not to police isolated acts of misconduct by individual officers who were violating the very state laws they were sworn to uphold. The petitioners' remedy for such unauthorized police brutality lies in state court. (The dissent concurs with the majority's conclusion that the City of Chicago is not a 'person' under the statute).
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally reshaped civil rights litigation, transforming 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from an obscure post-Civil War statute into a primary vehicle for challenging constitutional violations by state and local officials. By holding that 'under color of law' includes the misuse of official power, the Court opened federal courts to claims against officials acting in violation of state law, making a federal forum available without first having to exhaust state remedies. While the holding that municipalities are immune from § 1983 suits was later overturned in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (1978), the 'under color of law' doctrine established in Monroe remains a cornerstone of modern constitutional law and civil rights enforcement.
Unlock the full brief for Monroe v. Pape