Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyState ActionDue ProcessWarehouseman's Lienstate actionFourteenth Amendmentdue process

Facts

After respondent Brooks and her family were evicted from their apartment, a city marshal arranged for her possessions to be stored by Flagg Brothers in its warehouse. After disputes over moving and storage charges, Flagg Brothers sent Brooks a letter demanding payment within 10 days or her furniture would be sold under New York U.C.C. § 7-210. Brooks, later joined by Jones, sued under § 1983 seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that a sale under the statute would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. No public officials remained as defendants when the case reached decision.

Issue

Whether a warehouseman's proposed sale of goods entrusted to it for storage, as permitted by New York U.C.C. § 7-210, is action fairly attributable to the State of New York so as to constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and support a § 1983 claim.

Rule

For a § 1983 claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show not only action under color of state law but also that the deprivation is fairly attributable to the State. Private conduct is not state action merely because state law permits it; state action may exist where the State compels the act or where the private party exercises a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, but not where the State merely authorizes private self-help in an area that is not an exclusive sovereign function.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Desert Span Storage keeps Maya Ortiz's furniture after a landlord lockout. Arizona law permits a storage company, after notice, to sell stored goods to satisfy unpaid charges, and no court, sheriff, or clerk participates in the proposed sale.

If Maya brings a § 1983 due process claim against Desert Span Storage based solely on the threatened sale, what is the strongest argument against finding state action?

Explanation. A Fourteenth Amendment claim requires a deprivation fairly attributable to the State, not merely conduct by a private party acting in a setting regulated by state law. The majority held that a State's mere authorization or acquiescence in a private lien sale, without overt official involvement or compulsion, does not convert the private choice into state action.