Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Rizzo v. Goode

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTortsSection 1983Federal CourtsInjunctive ReliefFederalism42 U.S.C. § 1983injunction

Facts

Respondents brought class actions under § 1983 alleging a pervasive pattern of unconstitutional police mistreatment in Philadelphia and seeking equitable intervention against the Mayor, Managing Director, and Police Commissioner. After extensive hearings, the District Court found a number of incidents in which individual police officers, most not named as parties, had violated constitutional rights, but it also found no policy by the named petitioners to violate constitutional rights. The court concluded existing complaint procedures discouraged civilian complaints and minimized consequences for misconduct, and it ordered petitioners to formulate revised complaint and disciplinary procedures. A final judgment required implementation of detailed directives governing the processing of citizen complaints and reserved continuing judicial oversight.

Issue

Whether § 1983 and Article III permitted a federal court to impose a comprehensive injunction restructuring a city police department's internal complaint procedures where the named supervisory officials were not found to have adopted or authorized unconstitutional conduct, but only where a number of constitutional violations by individual officers had occurred and might recur. Also, whether principles of federalism counseled against such relief.

Rule

Under § 1983, equitable liability may be imposed only for conduct that subjects, or causes to be subjected, a person to a constitutional deprivation. Absent an affirmative link between the misconduct of individual officers and the adoption or authorization of a plan or policy by the named supervisory officials, and absent a real and immediate threat sufficient to create an Article III case or controversy, a federal court may not enter broad injunctive relief restructuring a local police department's internal procedures; federalism further counsels restraint in such intervention.

🔒

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 Dayton, Ohio, Lena Ortiz alleges that two city officers unlawfully detained her during a traffic stop eight months ago. She sues the mayor and police chief under § 1983 seeking an injunction requiring new complaint-review rules, but she offers no evidence that she is likely to encounter those officers again or that the mayor or chief plan to act against her personally.

Is Lena most likely entitled to the injunction?

Explanation. The majority stressed that past exposure to illegal conduct, without continuing present adverse effects or a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, is insufficient for injunctive relief. Lena's asserted future injury depends on speculation that unnamed officers might mistreat her again, so the personal stake required for Article III is missing.