Lexplug logoLexplug

Scheuer v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of United States
416 U.S. 232 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state executive official is not absolutely immune from a § 1983 damages suit for alleged unconstitutional conduct, but is entitled to a qualified immunity dependent on the scope of their discretion and the existence of reasonable grounds for a good-faith belief in the lawfulness of their actions. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits against officials in their individual capacities.


Facts:

  • In May 1970, a period of civil disorder occurred on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio.
  • Ohio Governor James Rhodes ordered the deployment of the Ohio National Guard to the campus.
  • The Adjutant General, his assistant, and other Guard members, acting under the Governor's orders, were present on the campus.
  • During the events, members of the Ohio National Guard shot and killed several students.
  • The personal representatives of three deceased students (Scheuer, Krause, and Miller) alleged that the Governor, Guard officers, and the university president intentionally and recklessly caused an unnecessary deployment and ordered illegal actions that resulted in the students' deaths.

Procedural Posture:

  • The personal representatives of the estates of three deceased students filed civil damage actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Ohio state officials in the U.S. District Court.
  • The District Court dismissed the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction before any answers were filed by the defendants.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the District Court that the suits were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and, alternatively, by the doctrine of executive immunity.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the dismissal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Do the doctrines of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or absolute executive immunity bar a civil damages suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state's highest executive officers for alleged unconstitutional actions taken during a civil disorder?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No. Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor the doctrine of executive immunity bars a damages suit against state officials for alleged unconstitutional conduct at the pleading stage. State executive officials are entitled to a qualified, not absolute, immunity from liability under § 1983. The Court reasoned that under the principle of Ex parte Young, when a state official acts unconstitutionally, they are stripped of their official capacity for purposes of the suit, subjecting them to personal liability and removing the Eleventh Amendment's bar. Regarding executive immunity, the Court held that while officials need protection to make decisive judgments, absolute immunity would undermine the purpose of § 1983, which is to provide a remedy for the deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. The proper standard is a qualified immunity, the scope of which depends on the official’s discretion and responsibilities, and whether they acted with a reasonable, good-faith belief in the legality of their actions based on the circumstances at the time. Therefore, dismissing the complaint before any evidence was presented was improper.



Analysis:

This case is foundational for modern qualified immunity doctrine. It rejected the idea that high-level executive officials, like governors, enjoy the same absolute immunity as judges or legislators. By establishing a qualified immunity standard based on good faith and reasonableness, the Court created a framework that balances the need to hold officials accountable for constitutional violations against the need for them to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation. This decision significantly shaped § 1983 litigation, requiring plaintiffs to overcome the qualified immunity defense by showing that an official's conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974)

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