Owen v. City of Independence

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Torts

445 U.S. 622 (1980)

Updated July 9, 2026

torts42 U.S.C. § 1983municipal liabilityofficial immunitydue process§ 1983qualified immunitygood faith defense

Facts

After an investigation into the police department property room, the city manager publicly stated that discrepancies existed but that there was no evidence of criminal conduct. While the city manager was away, a city councilman obtained investigative materials and, at a city council meeting, publicly made accusations against petitioner and moved that the reports be released to the media and prosecutor and that the city manager take direct action against those involved; the council passed the motion. The next day the city manager discharged petitioner without giving reasons, and the city denied petitioner's requests for written charges, a public hearing, and an appeal. The court treated the city's official actions as having publicly stigmatized petitioner in connection with his discharge, thereby depriving him of liberty without due process.

Issue

Whether a municipality sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may assert a qualified immunity from damages liability based on the good faith of its officers or agents. More specifically, when a city's official policy causes a constitutional deprivation, may the city avoid liability because its officials could not reasonably have known their conduct violated constitutional rights?

Rule

A municipality may not assert the good faith of its officers or agents as a defense to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When execution of a government's policy or custom by its lawmakers or by those whose acts may fairly be said to represent official policy causes a constitutional deprivation, the municipality is liable in damages without any qualified good-faith immunity.

🔒

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.

The city council of Mesa, Arizona, formally adopts a personnel policy requiring department heads accused of misconduct to be publicly identified in council minutes and immediately terminated without any opportunity to respond. After Elena Park is fired under that policy, she sues the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a due process violation. The city argues it should not owe damages because every council member honestly believed the policy was constitutional.

Assuming the policy caused a constitutional deprivation, which is the strongest response to the city's defense?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, municipalities have no qualified good-faith immunity in § 1983 damages actions. When execution of a government's policy or custom by lawmakers or officials representing official policy causes a constitutional deprivation, the municipality is liable in damages. The good faith of the city's officers does not bar recovery.