Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents Brief Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense Fund

    No. 81-1874

I n the

§>itjtrmr (Scurf of tfyr lmtr& #tntrs
October T eem, 1981

Georgia P atsy,

v.
Petitioner.

B oard op R egents of the State op F lorida, A B ody Cor­
porate, Fob and on B ehalf op F lorida I ntp«rnational 
U niversity.

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE NAACP LEGAL 
DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., 

AS AMICUS CURIAE

J ack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
B ill Lann Lee*
E ric Schnapper 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational 
Fund, Inc. as Amicus Curiae

* Counsel of Record



I N D E X

Pa?e

I n t e r e s t  o f  Amicus ........................................  1

Summary o f  Argument ...................................... 3

Argument ...............................................................  4

I .  THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION
1 983 ..................................    7

I I .  THE ORIGINS OF THE 'JUDICIAL 
REQUIREMENT OF ADMINIS­
TRATIVE EXHAUSTION .............   15

I I I .  THE PURPOSE OF EXHAUSTION
AND THE LEGISLATIVE HIS­
TORY OF SECTION 1983 ..............  30

IV. THE DEBATES CONCERNING THE
SHERMAN AMENDMENT .....................  44

CONCLUSION 50



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PgSg

Cases

Bacon v .  Rutland Ra i l ro ad  C o . ,
232 U.S.  134 (1914) ..........................  20

Brown v.  Board o f  Educat ion,
347 U.S.  483 (1 954) ..........................  2

C i ty  o f  Columbus v.  Leonard,  443
U.S. 905 ( 1 979) .................................... 39

Ex par te  Young, 209 U.S.  113
( 1 908) ........................................................ 10

F i r s t  Nat i ona l  C i t y  Bank o f  Gree l ey
v.  Board o f  County Commissioners
o f  County o f  Weld,  264 U.S 450
( 1 924) ......................................................... 22

G i l c h r i s t  v.  Interborough Rapid 
Tra ns i t  C o . ,  279 U.S. 159 
( 1 929) .........    21

Goldsmith v.  United S t a te s  Board 
o f  Tax Appeal s ,  270 U.S.
1 17 ( 1 926) ...............................................  21

H o l l i s  v.  Kutz,  255 U.S.  452
(1921) ......................................................... 21

Imbler v.  Pachtman, 424 U.S 409
(1976) ......................................................... 7

Kentucky v.  Dennison,  24 How.
66 ( 1 861 ) .......................................... .. 28

McKart v.  United S t a t e s ,  395 U.S 185
(1 969) ........................................................  32

-  i i  -



Page

Monell  v.  New York C ity  Department
o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s ,  436 U.S.  658
(1978) .................................  2 , 9 , 1 2 , 1 6 ,

18 ,22 ,28 ,3 0

Monroe v.  Pape,  365 U.S. 167
(1961) ........................................................  34

Myers v.  Bethlehem Sh i pbu i ld ing
Co rp . ,  303 U.S. 41 (1938) ............  22,30

N i c h o l l  v.  United S t a t e s ,  7 Wall .
(74 U.S.  ) 1 22 ( 1 869) ......................  23

Owens v.  C i ty  o f  Independence,  445
U.S. 622 ( 1 980) ............................  7,1 5,1 7,

18,23

Quern v.  'Jordan,  440 U.S. 332
(1979) ........................................................  8

Po r ter  v.  In ve s to rs  Synd i ca te ,
286 U.S. 461 ( 1 932) ........................  22

Prendergast  v. New York Telephone
Co. , 262 U.S. 43 ( 1 923) ................. 20

P re n t i s  v. A t l a n t i c  Coast Line C o . ,
211 U.S.  210 ( 1 908) ..........................  1 8

Prigg  v.  Pennslyvan ia , 16 Pet .  539
(1 842) ........................................................  28

Tenney v.  Brandhove,  341 U.S.
367 (1951)

- iii -

1 5



Page

United S ta te s  v.  Sing Tuck, 194
U.S. 1 61 ( 1 904) ...................................  1 9

S ta tut es

C i v i l  R ights  Act  o f  1871, S e c t i o n  1,
U.S.C.  § 1 983 .................................  passim

10 S t a t .  612 ...................................................... 24

11 S ta t .  195 ...................................................... 24

14 S t a t . 152 ............................................  25

17 S t a t .  269 ...................................................... 26

Other A u t h o r i t i e s

A l p e r t s ,  S u i t s  Against  Adminis­
t r a t i v e  Agenc ies  Under N . I .R .A .  
and A . A . ,  12 N.Y.LU.L.Q.  Rev.
393 (1 935) ...............................................  19

Berger ,  Exhaustion o f  Admin i s t r a t ive  
Remedies,  48 Yale L.'J. 981 
(1 938) ........................................................  19

Comment, Exhaustion o f  Adm in i s t ra t iv e  
Remedies,  39 Cor ne l l  L.Q.
273 ( 1 939) ...............................................  1 9

Cong. Globe ,  42nd Cong. 1st Sess .  &
App. (1871) .................................  12 ,13 ,14 ,

29 ,3 5 ,3 6 ,
37 ,38 ,39

IV



Page

L i l i e n t h a l ,  The Federal  Courts  and 
Sta te  Regula t i on  o f  P ub l i c  
U t i l i t i e s ,  43 Haw.  L. Rev.
379 (1 930) ...............................................  19

Note,  51 Harv. L. Rev. 1251 (1938) . .  19

v



No. 81-1874
IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October  Term, 1981

GEORGIA PATSY,

P e t i t i o n e r

v.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE 
OF FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE, 
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA 
INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY.

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE NAACP LEGAL 
DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.,

AS AMICUS CURIAE

I n t e r e s t  o f  Amicus

The NAACP Legal  Defense and Educat ion­

al  Fund, I n c . ,  i s  a n o n - p r o f i t  c o r p o r a t i o n  

e s t a b l i s h e d  under the laws o f  the S ta te  o f  

New York.  I t  was formed t o  a s s i s t  black



2

p e r s o n s  t o  s e c u r e  t h e i r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

r i g h t s  by the p r o s e c u t i o n  o f  l a w s u i t s .  I t s  

c h a r t e r  d e c l a r e s  that  i t s  purposes  inc lude  

rendering  l e g a l  s e r v i c e s  g r a t u i t o u s l y  to  

b lack  persons  s u f f e r i n g  i n j u s t i c e  by r e a ­

son o f  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  For  many 

years  a t t o rn eys  o f  the Legal  Defense Fund 

have r e p r e s e n t e d  p a r t i e s  in l i t i g a t i o n  

b e f o r e  t h i s  Cour t  and the  l o w e r  c o u r t s  

i n v o l v i n g  a v a r i e t y  o f  i s s u e s  b r o u g h t  

pursuant t o  42 U.S.C.  § 1 983. E. g . , Monell  

v .  New York C i t y  Departmet  o f  S o c i a l  Ser ­

v i c e s  , 436 U.S.  658 (1978 ) ;  Brown v.  Board 

o f  E d u c a t i o n , 347 U.S .  483 ( 1 9 5 4 ) .  The 

Legal  Defense Fund b e l i e v e s  that  i t s  ex ­

p e r i e n c e  in  such l i t i g a t i o n  and the  r e ­

s e a r c h  i t  has p e r f o r m e d  w i l l  a s s i s t  the  

Court in t h i s  case .  The p a r t i e s  have con­

s e n t e d  t o  the  f i l i n g  o f  t h i s  b r i e f ,  and 

l e t t e r s  o f  consent  have been f i l e d  with the

C l e r k .



3

Summary o f  Argument

We r e s p e c t f u l l y  submit  t h a t  n e i t h e r  

the language nor the l e g i s l a t i v e  h i s t o r y  

o f  s e c t i o n  1 o f  the  C i v i l  R i g h t s  Ac t  o f  

1 8 7 1 ,  p r e s e n t l y  c o d i f i e d  as 42 U . S . C .  

§ 1983, impose any requirement o f  exhaus­

t i o n  o f  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  r e m e d i e s .  The 

l e g i s l a t i v e  h i s t o r y  r e v e a l s  that  Congress 

intended no such r e s t r i c t i o n  on the broad 

r i g h t  t o  br ing  s e c t i o n  1983 a c t i o n s .  Nor 

can any such r e s t r i c t i o n  be i m p l i e d  in 

l i g h t  o f  the  f a c t  t h a t  any n o t i o n  o f  a 

j u d i c i a l l y  imposed exhaust ion requirement 

d i d  no t  emerge u n t i l  much l a t e r ,  in the  

twent i eth  century .  Indeed,  any exhaust ion 

requirement  would be i n c o n s i s t e n t  with one 

o f  the  c r i t i c a l  f i n d i n g s  o f  the  f o r t y -  

s e c o n d  C o n g r e s s  t h a t  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  

were un wi l l ing  t o  en fo r c e  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

gu ar an t ee s .



4

T h is  i s  not  t o  say  t h a t  p o t e n t i a l  

p l a i n t i f f s  must o r  w i l l  i n e v i t a b l y  sue 

under s e c t i o n  1983. Rather ,  Congress  has 

prov ided  an i n c e n t i v e  f o r  improvement o f  

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  and o the r  remedies in the 

s t a t e s  by co n t in u in g  t o  make s e c t i o n  1983 a 

r e a d y  remedy w h i l e  p e r m i t t i n g  t h o s e  ag­

g r i e v e d  t o  u t i l i z e  any s t a t e  remedies which 

they b e l i e v e  t o  be e f f i c a c i o u s .

ARGUMENT

Whether as a matter  o f  p o l i c y  i t  would 

be wise t o  r e q u i r e ,  as a p r e c o n d i t i o n  o f  

a c c e s s  t o  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s ,  t h a t  p e r s o n s  

a l l e g i n g  v i o l a t i o n s  o f  t h e i r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

r i g h t s ,  f i r s t  exhaust  any a v a i l a b l e  s t a t e  

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  r e m e d i e s ,  i s  a c o m p l e x ,  

s e n s i t i v e ,  and i m p o r t a n t  q u e s t i o n .  The 

c our t  o f  appeal s  below viewed t h i s  case as 

an ap pr o pr ia te  v e h i c l e  t o  express  i t s  views



5

r e g a r d i n g  f e d e r a l - s t a t e  r e l a t i o n s ,  the  

i d e a l  a l l o c a t i o n  o f  j u d i c i a l  r e s o u r c e s ,  and 

the bes t  manner in which the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  

can e n c o u r a g e  the  s t a t e s  t o  s t r e n g t h e n  

t h e i r  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  p r o c e d u r e s .  We 

b e l i e v e  t h a t  the  F i f t h  C i r c u i t  m i s c o n ­

ce iv e d  the nature o f  the i ssue  b e f o r e  i t ,  

and t h e  r o l e  o f  t h e  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  i n  

r e s o l v i n g  i t .

The q u e s t i on  presented  by t h i s  case  i s  

no t  one o f  j u d i c i a l  p h i l o s o p h y ,  but  o f  

s t a t u t o r y  c o n s t r u c t i o n .  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  

o f  the c ou r t s  i s  l i m i t e d  to  a s c e r t a i n i n g  

the  i n t e n t i o n  o f  the  C o n g r e s s  which met 

some 110 y e a r s  ago  and f a s h i o n e d  t h e  

1871 C i v i l  Rights  Ac t .  Those l e g i s l a t o r s  

l i v e d  in  a t ime  v e r y  d i f f e r e n t  f rom our  

own. H a l f  the  c o u n t r y ,  s t i l l  p r o s t r a t e  

from an exhaust ing  war, wavered between mob 

r u le  and t o t a l  anarchy;  the Klu Klux Klan,



6

t oday  l i t t l e  more than a d e p l o r a b l e  r e l i c  

o f  pas t  h a t r e d s ,  then fu nc t i o ned  as v i r t u ­

a l l y  a shadow government in many southern 

s t a t e s .  Far f rom b e i n g  c o n c e r n e d  about  

o f f e n d i n g  the s e n s i t i v i t i e s  o f  " s o v e r e i g n  

s t a t e s , "  the f o r t y - s e c o n d  Congress pres ide d  

over  a m i l i t a r y  o c cu p a t i o n  o f  those  former 

Confedera te  S t a t e s ,  whose l ea der s  i t  o f t e n  

l a b e l e d  as t r a i t o r s .  Whether  the  1871 

C i v i l  Rights  Act was w is e l y  d r a f t e d  when 

adopted ,  o r  ought to  be amended in l i g h t  o f  

changing c o n d i t i o n s ,  are not q u es t i o n s  t h i s  

C our t  need o r  s h o u l d  a d d r e s s .  The s o l e  

i s s u e  b e f o r e  t h i s  Cour t  i s  whether  the  

f r a m e r s  o f  t h a t  A c t  i n t e n d e d  t h a t  i t s  

r e m e d i e s  o n l y  be a v a i l a b l e  t o  t h o s e  who 

had f i r s t  exhausted s t a t e  a d m i n i s t ra t i v e

r e m ed ie s .



7

I .  THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 1983

Because the qu e s t i on  o f  exhaust i on  i s  

one o f  s t a t u t o r y  c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  the language 

o f  the s t a t u t e  i t s e l f  i s  o f  c e n t r a l  impor­

tance .  By i t s  terms s e c t i o n  1983 c r e a t e s  a 

s p e c i e s  o f  t o r t  l i a b i l i t y  that  admits o f  no 

p r e c o n d i t i o n s  o r  p r e r e q u i s i t e s .  See Imbler 

v .  Pachtman, 424 U.S.  409,  417 (1976 ) .  I t s  

language i s  ab so lu t e  and u n q u a l i f i e d ;  no 

mention i s  made o f  s t a t e  or  f e d e r a l  admin­

i s t r a t i v e  r e m e d i e s ,  o f  s t a t e  j u d i c i a l  

p r o c e e d i n g s ,  o r  o f  any o th er  event  which 

must  o c c u r  b e t w e e n  t h e  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

v i o l a t i o n  and t h e  commencement  o f  t h e  

author i zed  c i v i l  a c t i o n .  See Owen v .  C i ty  

o f  Independence , 445 U.S.  622,  635 (1980 ) .

R a t h e r ,  t h e  a c t  i m p o s e s  l i a b i l i t y  on 

" [ e ] v e r y  p e r s o n " who under  c o l o r  o f  law 

s u b j e c t s  " any p e r s o n " t o  a " d e p r i v a t i o n  o f

any r i g h t s ,  p r i v i l e g e s ,  o r  i m m u n i t i e s



8

s e c u r e d  by the  C o n s t i t u t i o n  and l a w s . "  

Nothing on the fa ce  o f  the s t a t u t e  sugges ts  

that  on ly  persons  who have exhausted s t a t e  

r emed ies ,  r a t her  than "any person"  what­

s o e v e r ,  can a v a i l  themselves  o f  the p r o ­

t e c t i o n  o f  the s t a t u t e .

The e x i s t e n c e  o f  an e x h a u s t i o n  r e ­

quirement i s  i n c o n s i s t e n t  with the type o f  

d e f e n d a n t s  s u b j e c t  t o  s u i t  in a s e c t i o n  

1 983 a c t i o n .  Most o f  the cases  imposing 

exhaust ion  requirements  invo lve d  l i t i g a t i o n  

aga ins t  government agenc i es  seeking  reme­

d i a l  o rders  aimed at those  agenc i es  them­

s e l v e s .  But s e c t i o n  1983 i s  not so d i r e c t ­

ed.  I t  au th o r i z e s  s u i t  not j u s t  or  pr imar­

i l y  aga ins t  government b o d i e s ,  but aga inst  

any "person"  who has v i o l a t e d  f e d e r a l  r i g h t s

under c o l o r  o f  s t a t e  law.  Sta tes  can never1/
be named as de f end an ts ,  and l o c a l  govern—

1/ Quern v .  Jordan,  440 U.S.  332 (1979 ) .



9

ments can on l y  be sued under c e r t a i n  nar -
2/

r o w l y  d e f i n e d  c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  N a tu ra l  

persons  are the most common, and f r e q u e n t ly  

the on ly  de fendants  in s e c t i o n  1983 c a s e s .

E x h a u s t i o n  i s  a r u l e  about  when a 

pa r ty  suing a s t a t e  or  f e d e r a l  agency must 

u t i l i z e  remedies prov ided  by that  defendant  

a g e n c y  t o  c o r r e c t  i t s  own e r r o r s .  An 

e x h a u s t i o n  r e q u i r e m e n t  c o u l d  i n t e l l i g i ­

b l y ,  a l though mis taken ly  in our v i ew ,  be 

ap p l i e d  in a p o l i c e  b r u t a l i t y  s u i t  aga ins t  

a c i t y .  But i f  such a s u i t ,  as Congress 

c l e a r l y  c o n t e m p l a t e d  most  s e c t i o n  1983 

s u i t s  would be,  were against  an i n d iv i d u a l  

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r ,  exhaust i on  i s  an anomalous 

c o n c e p t .  The ac tua l  defendant  pol iceman 

s imply  has no "a d m in i s t r a t iv e  remedies"  t o

2 /  Monell  v .  New York C i ty  Department o f  
S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s ,  436 U.S.  658,  690 -6 95  
(1978 ) .



o f f e r .  The C i t y  i s  not a named de f endant ,  

and i f ,  as a l l e g e d ,  the conduct  complained 

o f  i s  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,  t h e  c o n d u c t  

i s  "wi thout  the a u t h o r i t y  o f ,  and does not 

a f f e c t  t h e  [ c i t y ]  i n  i t s  s o v e r e i g n  o r  

governmental  c a p a c i t y . "  Ex parte  Young, 

209 U.S.  123, 159 (1908 ) .  A c i t y  o r  s t a t e ,  

o f  c o u r s e ,  may choose  t o  c re a te  an adminis ­

t r a t i v e  remedy f o r  i n j u r i e s  caused by i t s  

employees a c t in g  in excess  o f  t h e i r  author ­

i t y ,  j u s t  as i t  may prov ide  a s s i s t a n c e  f o r  

v i c t i m s  o f  harms c o m m i t t e d  by  p r i v a t e  

w r o n g d o e r s ,  s u c h  as c o m p e n s a t i o n  f o r  

v i c t i m s  o f  c r imes .  The p e r p e t r a t o r  o f  such 

a p r i v a t e  c r i m e  c o u l d  n o t  c o n c e i v a b l y  

immunize h i m s e l f  f rom s u i t  by demanding 

t h a t  h i s  v i c t i m  " e x h a u s t "  s u c h  t h i r d  

p a r t y  remed ies .  The p o s i t i o n  o f  a wrong­

doer  who happens t o  be a p u b l i c  o f f i c i a l  i s  

not  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  d i f f e r e n t .  I t  i s  u n l i k e ­



l y  in the extreme that  Congress intended,  

where a s u i t  was br oug ht  a g a i n s t  bo t h  a 

c i t y  and i t s  o f f i c i a l s ,  t h a t  the  a c t i o n  

c o u l d  p r o c e e d  a g a i n s t  the  o f f i c i a l  but 

would have t o  be stayed pending exhaust ion 

as to  the c i t y  i t s e l f .  I t  i s  on ly  margin­

a l l y  l e s s  u n l i k e l y  that  Congress intended 

t o  impose  an e x h a u s t i o n  r e q u i r e m e n t  in 

t h e  m i n o r i t y  o f  c a s e s  in  w h i c h  o n l y  a 

government agency was named as a defendant .

The debates  l eading  t o  the passage o f  

s e c t i o n  1 o f  the C i v i l  Rights  Act o f  1871, 

the f o rerunner  o f  s e c t i o n  1983, support  a 

l i t e r a l  r e a d i n g  o f  t h i s  b road  and u n r e ­

s t r i c t e d  language.  Representa t ive  S h e l l a -  

ba rger ,  the author and manager o f  the b i l l  

in  the  House ,  e x p l a i n e d  how the  c o u r t s  

should i n t e r p r e t  the Act :

T h i s  Act  i s  r e m e d i a l ,  and in a i d  o f  
the p r e s e r v a t i o n  o f  human l i b e r t y  and 
human r i g h t s .  A l l  s t a t u t e s  and 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  p r o v i s i o n s  au thor i z ing



12

s u c h  s t a t u t e s  a r e  l i b e r a l l y  and 
b e n e f i c e n t l y  c ons t ru ed .

. . . . As has been again and again 
d e c i d e d  by  o u r  own Supreme  C o u r t  
o f  the United S t a t e s ,  and everywhere 
e l s e  where  t h e r e  i s  w i s e  j u d i c i a l  
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,  the l a r g e s t  l a t i t u d e  
c o n s i s t e n t  with the words employed i s  
u n i f o r m l y  g i v e n  in c o n s t r u i n g  such 
s t a t u t e s  and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  p r o v i s i o n s  
as are meant t o  p r o t e c t  and defend and 
g iv e  remedies f o r  t h e i r  wrongs t o  a l l  
the p e o p l e .  3/

See a l s o  Monel l  v .  New York C i t y  Department 

o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s , 436 U.S.  658, 683-87 

(1978 ) .

The adopt i on  o f  an exhaust i on  r e q u i r e ­

ment,  f o r  whatever reasons ,  would n e c e s s a r ­

i l y  e s t a b l i s h  a b a r r i e r ,  sometimes tempo­

r a r y ,  on o c c a s i o n  perhaps permanent,  t o  r e ­

l i e f  in the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s .  At the l e a s t  

an aggr i eved  par ty  would f i nd  t h a t ,  u n t i l  

e x h a u s t i o n  was c o m p l e t e d ,  the  n a t i o n a l  

c o u r t s  were c l o s e d  t o  him;  i f  a l l  s t a t e

3/ Cong.  G l o b e ,  42nd C o n g . ,  1s t  S e s s .  
App. 68 (1871 ) .



- 13 -

r e m e d i e s  were not  s o u g h t ,  a c c e s s  t o  the

f e d e r a l  c ou r t s  might be prec luded  f o r e v e r .

Nothing could  have been fu r t he r  from the

contemplat i on  o f  the framers o f  the 1871

A c t .  R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Lowe i n s i s t e d  t h a t

t h e  A c t  " t h r o w s  o p e n  t h e  d o o r s  o f  t h e

United S ta te s  c o u r t s  t o  those  whose r i g h t s

u n d e r  t h e  C o n s t i t u t i o n  a r e  d e n i e d  o r  
4 /

i m p a i r e d . "  Congressman Coburn u r g e d :

Obv ious ly  the cour t  o f  j u s t i c e  i s  the 
f i r s t  instrument t o  be used in aid o f  
t h e  f o u r t e e n t h  amendment ;  s a f e r ,  
m i l d er ,  sur er ,  more in accordance  with 
r e a s o n ,  w i th  our  s ys tem ,  and wi th  
p u b l i c  s e n t i m e n t .  Whenever ,  t h e n ,  
there  i s  a den ia l  o f  equal  p r o t e c t i o n  
by the  S t a t e ,  the  c o u r t s  o f  j u s t i c e  
o f  the nat i on  stand with open do or s ,  
. . . Here may come the weak and poor  
and dow ntrodden  with  a s s u r a n c e  t h a t  
they s h a l l  be heard.  5 /

Even those  who opposed o ther  as pe c t s  o f  the

4 /  Cong.  G l o b e ,  42nd C o n g . ,  1s t  S e s s .  
376.

5 /  Id.  459.



1 4

Act agreed that  the f e d e r a l  c o ur t s  should 

be a v a i l a b l e  whenever  a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

v i o l a t i o n  were  t h r e a t e n e d .  I f  a s t a t e  

p a s s e d  laws  c o n t r a v e n i n g  the  F o u r t e e n t h  

Amendment,  R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  S l a t e r  empha­

s i z e d  ,

Such laws  would be s i m p l e  n u l l i t i e s  
. . .  and e v e r y  o f f i c e r  o f  the  s t a t e ,  
f rom a j u s t i c e  o f  the  p e a c e  t o  the 
supreme judge ,  from a c o n s ta b le  t o  the 
Ex ec ut ive ,  under t h e i r  oath to  support  
the C o n s t i t u t i o n  o f  the United S t a t e s ,  
would be bound t o  d i s r e ga rd  them. I f ,  
h o w e v e r ,  t h e i r  e n f o r c e m e n t  were  
attempted,  the c i t i z e n  i s  not without  
means o f  p r o t e c t i o n .  The F e d e r a l  
c o u r t s ,  a lways  open wi th  w r i t s  o f  
habeas c o r p u s , w r i t s  o f  r e s t r a i n t ,  and 
i n j u n c t i o n s ,  and o t h e r  r e m e d i a l  
a g e n c i e s ,  can at  a l l  t im es  r e n d e r  
e f f i c i e n t  and ample s e c u r i t y  aga inst  
a c t u a l  o r  t h r e a t e n e d  d i s r e g a r d  o f  
these  guarantees .  6 /

That the doors  o f  the f e d e r a l  c o ur t s  should 

now be c l o s e d  t o  p e t i t i o n e r ,  as the c o ur t s  

below urged,  would be square ly  c on t ra ry  to  

the o r i g i n a l  in te n t  o f  Congress .

6 /  Id .  App. 305 (emphasis added) .



1 5

I I .  THE ORIGINS OF THE 'JUDICIAL REQUIRE-
MENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

The b r oa d  la n g u a g e  o f  s e c t i o n  1983,  

combined with the expansive  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  

i t  c l e a r l y  c o n t e m p l a t e d  by i t s  f r a m e r s ,  

would o r d i n a r i l y  be s u f f i c i e n t  t o  d e f e a t  

any c laim that  r e l i e f  aga inst  a p a r t i c u l a r  

p a r t y  c o u l d  be d e l a y e d  o r  d e n i e d .  T h i s  

Court has o n l y  re cogn ized  as l i m i t a t i o n s  

t o  s e c t i o n  1983 a c t i o n s  ru le s  " so  f i r m ly  

ro o ted  in the common lav? . . .  that  ’ Congress 

would have s p e c i f i c a l l y  so prov ided  had i t  

wished t o  a b o l i s h  the d o c t r i n e . ’ " Owens v . 

C i ty  o f  Independence , 445 U.S.  662 (1980 ) .

Thus in Tenney v.  Brandhove, 341 U.S.  367 

(1 95 1 ) ,  t h i s  Court concluded that  l e g i s l a ­

t i v e  i m m u n i t y  was in  1871 s u c h  a l o n g  

e s t a b l i s h e d  d o c t r i n e ,  not ing that  i t  had 

been at  the  c e n t e r  o f  the  P a r l i a m e n t a r y

s t r u g g l e s  o f  the s i x t e e n t h  and seventeenth



c e n t u r i e s ,  and was e x p r e s s l y  in co r p or a t ed  

in the Engl ish B i l l  o f  R ig h ts ,  the A r t i c l e s  

o f  C o n f e d e r a t i o n ,  the C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  and at 

l e a s t  e i g h t  18th century  s t a t e  c o n s t i t u ­

t i o n s  o r  b i l l s  o f  r i g h t s .  341 U.S.  372-75.

In M o n e l l  bo t h  the  m a j o r i t y  and the  

d i s s e n t e r s  agreed that  the s t a t e  o f  the law 

in 1871 regard ing  munic ipa l  immunity was o f  

c o n t r o l l i n g  i m p o r t a n c e  in  d e t e r m i n i n g  

whether c i t i e s  could  be sued under s e c t i o n  

1983. The m a jo r i t y  r e j e c t e d  any ab s o l u t e  

munic ipa l  immunity because  "by 1871, . . .  

muni c ipa l  c o r p o r a t i o n s  were r o u t i n e l y  sued 

in  the  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  and t h i s  f a c t  was 

w e l l  known to  the Members o f  Co ngress , "  436 

U.S.  at 588.  ' J u s t i c e  Rehnquist  argued,  t o  

the c o n t r a r y ,  that  at that  time "no s t a t e  

c o ur t  had ever  he ld that  munic ipa l  c o r p o r a ­

t i o n s  were always l i a b l e  in t o r t  in p r e ­

c i s e l y  the same manner as o ther  p e r s o n s . "



17

436 U.S.  at 721. S i m i l a r l y ,  in Owens v . 

C i ty  o f  Independence , 445 U.S.  622 (1980 ) ,

a l l  members o f  the  Cour t  r e g a r d e d  t h i s  

h i s t o r i c a l  i s sue  as c r i t i c a l .  The m a jo r i t y  

c onc luded that  the broad language o f  the 

s t a t u t e  c o u l d  no t  be r e s t r i c t e d  by good  

f a i t h  i m m u n i t y  f o r  l o c a l  g o v e r n m e n t s  

b e c a u s e  in the  n i n e t e e n t h  c e n t u r y  " t h e  

c o u r t s  had r e j e c t e d  the p r o p o s i t i o n  that  a 

m u n i c i p a l i t y  should be p r i v i l e g e d  where i t  

r e a s o n a b l y  b e l i e v e d  i t s  a c t i o n s  t o  be 

l a w f u l . "  445 U.S.  at 641. ' Ju s t i c e  Powel l  

and three  o ther  members o f  the Court d i s ­

s e n t e d  on the  ground t h a t  the  m a j o r i t y  

o p i n io n  "runs counter  t o  the common law in 

the 19th cent ury ,  which re co gn iz e d  substan­

t i a l  t o r t  immunity f o r  munic ipal  a c t i o n s . "  

445 U.S.  at  676.

I f  the  r i g h t  o f  p e t i t i o n e r  in t h i s  

case  t o  maintain an a c t i o n  in f e d e r a l  c our t



18

i s  t o  be d e l a y e d  o r  d e n i e d ,  d e s p i t e  the  

l i t e r a l  language o f  s e c t i o n  1983, i t  must 

be because the p r i n c i p l e  o f  a j u d i c i a l l y  

imposed a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  exhaust i on  r u l e  was 

so f i r m l y  e s t a b l i s h e d  in 1871 that  Congress 

was w e l l  aware o f  i t ,  knew that  the c o u r t s  

would apply  i t  un les s  o t herwise  d i r e c t e d ,  

and would  have  e x p r e s s l y  d i s a p p r o v e d  o f  

that  j u d i c i a l  p r a c t i c e  had i t  not wanted i t  

a p p l i e d .  For tun ate ly  here ,  un l ike  Monell  

and Owens, the i s s ue  i s  c l e a r  beyond p e r -  

adventure .  This  exhaust i on  d o c t r i n e  was 

t o t a l l y  unheard o f  in 1871.

S ch o la rs  g e n e r a l l y  agree that  the idea

o f  a j u d i c i a l l y  imposed a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

e x h a u s t i o n  r e q u i r e m e n t  has i t s  r o o t s  in

P r e n t i s  v .  A t l a n t i c  C oas t  L ine  C o . ,  211
1/

U.S. 210 ( 1 908) .  in that  case the r a i l -

7 /  Comment, Exhaustion o f  Adm in i s t r a t ive  
Remedies,  39 C or ne l l  L. Q. 273,  277 (1939)



1 9

road c h a l l e n g in g  c e r t a i n  proposed r a t e s  as 

c o n f i s c a t o r y  had f a i l e d  t o  appeal  them t o  

the  V i r g i n i a  Supreme Cour t  o f  A p p e a l s ,  

which reviewed such r a t e s  in a l e g i s l a t i v e  

c a p a c i t y .  Mr. ’J u s t i c e  Holmes,  emphasizing 

that  " [n]o  new ev idence  and no g reat  a d d i ­

t i o n a l  e x p e n s e "  would be i n v o l v e d ,  h e l d  

that  the r a i l r o a d  had sued t oo  soon,  and

2 /  cont inued

( " P r e n t i s  v .  A t l a n t i c  Coast Line Co. , i s  
t h e  r e a l  b e g i n n i n g  o f  t h e  e x h a u s t i o n  
r u l e . " ) ?  L i l i e n t h a l ,  The F e d e r a l  C o u r t s  
and Sta te  Regula t i on  o f  P u b l i c  U t i l i t i e s ,  
43 Harv.  L. Rev.  379 ,  385 (1930 )  ( "The
d o c t r i n e  had i t s  beginning in P ren t i s  v . 
A t l a n t i c  Coast Line Co. , " ) ;  Note,  51 Harv. 
L. Rev. 1251, 1261 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ( " T h i s  p r i n c i p l e
was e s t a b l i s h e d  in the case o f  P ren t i s  v . 
A t l a n t i c  Coast Line Co. " ) .  A l p e r t ,  S u i t s  
Agains t  Admin i s t r a t ive  Agenc ies  under N . I .  
R. A . and A . A . A . ,  12 N.Y.U.L.Q.  Rev. 393,
395 (1935 ) .  P r o f e s s o r  Berger argues that
t h e  d o c t r i n e  o r i g i n a t e d  in  t h i s  C o u r t  
in a d e c i s i o n  four  years  b e f o re  P r e n t i s ,  
United S ta tes  v.  Sing Tuck, 194 U.S.  161 
(1904 ) .  R. Berger ,  Exhaustion o f  Adminis­
t r a t i v e  Remedies,  48 Yale L. J.  981 , 9 81 —
82 (1938 ) .



20

d i r e c t e d  i t  t o  pu rsu e  t h a t  a p p e a l .  211 

U.S.  at 230.  But the Court d id  not  pretend 

i t  was apply ing  any h i t h e r t o  heard o f  r u l e .  

The m a j o r i t y  o p i n io n  re p e a t e d l y  disavowed 

any attempt to  f ormula te  a "g enera l  r u l e "  

o r  "g enera l  p r i n c i p l e s , "  211 U.S.  at 229;  

i t  c i t e d  no a u t h o r i t y  f o r  i t s  d e c i s i o n ,  and 

in d i c a t e d  that  the defendant  had not  ra i se d  

the  argument  on which the  d e c i s i o n  was 

based.  I d .

The p o s s i b i l i t y  that  exhaust ion was a 

requirement  o f  gen era l  a p p l i c a t i o n  emerged 

on ly  s l o w l y .  The e a r l y  attempts  t o  invoke 

P r e n t i s  as a de f ense  sought t o  r e qu i r e  ex­

h a u s t i o n  o f  j u d i c i a l  r e m e d i e s ,  and were
8/

s o u n d l y  r e j e c t e d .  in  1921 the  Supreme 

C o u r t  u n a n i m o u s l y  r e v e r s e d  a c o u r t  o f

8 /  Prendergast  v.  New York Telephone Co. , 
262 U.S.  43,  48 (1923 ) ;  Bacon v.  Rutland
R a i l r o a d  C o . ,  232 U.S 134,  137 ( 1 9 1 4 ) .



21

appeals  d e c i s i o n  that  a consumer aggr i eved

by f e d e r a l  agency a c t i o n  in c r ea s in g  u t i l i t y

r a t e s  had t o  f i l e  a formal  c omplaint  and
9 /

se ek  a m o d i f i c a t i o n  o f  t h a t  d e c i s i o n .

In Goldsmith v .  United Sta tes  Board o f  Tax

A p p e a l s , 270 U.S. 117, 123-24 (1926 ) ,  the

Cour t  h e l d  t h a t  the  p l a i n t i f f  c o u l d  no t

complain o f  a c t i o n  taken by the Board u n t i l

he had sought a hearing b e f o r e  i t  on the

d i s p u t e  in  q u e s t i o n ,  b u t  t h i s  was an

argument the  d e f e n d a n t  i t s e l f  had never  
1 0/

made.  Not u n t i l  1929 do t h i s  C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n s  r e f e r  t o  a " d o c t r i n e "  approved in
JM/

P r e n t i s .  The term " e x h a u s t "  appe ar s

9 /  H o l l i s  v.  Kutz,  255 U.S. 452,  453-54
T 1 9 2 1 ) .

10/  B r i e f  on Behal f  o f  Defendant in Error ,  
No.  320 , O c t o b e r  Term 1 925 , pp .  3,  23.

11/  G i l c h r i s t  v .  Interborough Rapid Tran- 
s i t  C o . , 279 U.S 159, 208 (1929) .



22

on ly  i n t e r m i t t e n t l y  in those  e a r l y  ye a rs .  

Only  in Myers v .  Beth lehem S h i p b u i l d i n g  

Corp . , 303 U.S.  41, 50-51 ( 1 938) ,  some 57

y e a r s  a f t e r  t h e  e n a c t m e n t  o f  s e c t i o n  

1 983 , i s  the  e x i s t e n c e  o f  a j u d i c i a l l y  

imposed exhaust ion  requirement  s u f f i c i e n t l y  

c l e a r  t h a t  any i n f e r e n c e  about  C o n g r e s ­

s i o n a l  i n te n t  c ould  even arguably  be drawn 

from Congre ss i on a l  s i l e n c e .

The absence o f  any j u d i c i a l  exhaust i on  

requirement  u n t i l  l ong a f t e r  the enactment 

o f  s e c t i o n  1983 i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y  important 

because the 42nd Congress was w e l l  aware o f  

t h e  volume o f  l i t i g a t i o n  in th e  f e d e r a l  

c o u r t s  aga in s t  l o c a l  governments.  Monell  

v .  New York C i ty  Department o f  S o c i a l  S e r -

12/

12/  Po r ter  v.  I n v e s t o r s  S y n d i c a t e , 286 U.S 
461 ,  468 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ;  F i r s t  N a t i o n a l  Bank o f  
Gree ley  v.  Board o f  County Commissioners o f  
County o f  Weld, 264 U.S 450,  453 (1924 ) .



23

v i c e s , 436 U.S.  658,  673,  n.28 (1978 ) ;  Owen 

v .  C i t y  o f  I n d e p e n d e n c e , 445 U.S .  622,  

64 2 -4 3  ( 1 9 8 0 ) .  Only where f e d e r a l  law 

e x p r e s s l y  r e qu i red  exhaust ion as a p r ec o n ­

d i t i o n  o f  s u i t  d id  the c ou r t s  impose such a 

requi rement .  N i c h o l l  v .  United S t a t e s ,  7

Wal l .  (74 U.S. )  122, 130-31 (1869 ) .

W h e n e v e r  d u r i n g  t h e  19 th  c e n t u r y  

C o n g r e s s  w i shed  t o  impose  an e x h a u s t i o n  

r e q u i r e m e n t ,  i t  d i d  s o  e x p r e s s l y  and 

u n e q u i v o c a l l y .  In 1857 Congress author i zed  

importers  who paid  d u t i e s  under p r o t e s t  t o  

sue  f o r  a r e f u n d  p r o v i d e d  t h e y  f i r s t
I V

appealed t o  the C o l l e c t o r  o f  Customs. j n

13/  "On the ent ry  o f  any goods ,  wares
and merchandise imported on and a f t e r  
the f i r s t  day o f  'July a f o r e s a i d ,  the 
d e c i s i o n  o f  t h e  c o l l e c t o r  o f  t h e  
customs at the por t  o f  impor ta t ion  and 
e n t r y ,  as t o  t h e i r  l i a b i l i t y  t o  duty 
o r  e x e m p t i o n  t h e r e f o r m  s h a l l  be 
f i n a l  and c o n c l u s i v e  a g a i n s t  t h e  
owner,  importer ,  c ons ign ee ,  or  agent 
o f  any such goods ,  wares,  and merchan-



24

1866 Congress  gave aggr i eved  taxpayers  the

r i g h t  t o  sue the Commissioner o f  I n t e rn a l

Revenue f o r  taxes  e r ro n e o u s ly  o r  i l l e g a l l y

a s s e s s e d ,  but on ly  i f  an "appeal  s h a l l  have
1 1 /

been d u l y  made t o  the  c o m m i s s i o n e r . "

13/  cont inued

d i s e ;  u n l e s s  the  owner ,  i m p o r t e r ,  
c o ns ignee  or agent s h a l l ,  w i th in  ten 
days a f t e r  such e n t r y ,  g i v e  n o t i c e  to  
t h e  c o l l e c t o r ,  i n  w r i t i n g  o f  h i s  
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  w i th  such d e c i s i o n ,  
s e t t i n g  f o r t h  t h e r e in  d i s t i n c t l y  and 
s p e c i f i c a l l y  h i s  grounds o f  o b j e c t i o n  
h e r e t o ,  and s h a l l ,  w i th in  t h i r t y  days 
a f t e r  t h e  d a t e  o f  s u c h  d e c i s i o n ,  
appeal  there from t o  the s e c r e t a r y  o f  
the t r e a s u r y ,  whose d e c i s i o n  on such 
appeal  s h a l l  be f i n a l  and c o n c l u s i v e ;  
and the sa id  goods ,  wares and merchan­
d i s e  s h a l l  be l i a b l e  t o  d u t y  o r  
exempted t h e r e f r o m  a c c o r d i n g l y ,  any 
a c t  o f  C o n g r e s s  t o  t h e  c o n t r a r y  
no twi t hs t an d in g ;  un less  s u i t  s h a l l  be 
brought  w i t h i n  t h i r t y  days a f t e r  such 
d e c i s i o n  f o r  any d u t i e s  t h a t  may 
have been pa id ,  o r  may t h e r e a f t e r  be 
pa id ,  on said  goods ,  or  w i t h i n  t h i r t y  
days a f t e r  the d u t i e s  s h a l l  have been 
paid  in cases  where such goods s h a l l  
be in bond. "  11 S t a t .  195.

14/  "No s u i t  s h a l l  be maintained in
any c our t  f o r  the re co ve r y  o f  any tax



25

The f o r t y - s e c o n d  C o n g r e s s ,  which framed 

s e c t i o n  1983, a l s o  gave merchant seamen a 

cause o f  a c t i o n  f o r  a pe n a l t y  o f  up t o  one 

hundred d o l l a r s  aga ins t  any ships  master 

who f a i l e d  t o  pro v id e  adequate water and 

p r o v i s i o n s ,  but the pe na l t y  cou ld  not  be 

sought u n t i l  the seamen had complained t o  a 

navy o f f i c e r  or  an American consu lar  o f f i -

14/  c ont inued

a l l e g e d  t o  have been e r r o n e o u s l y  o r  
i l l e g a l l y  assessed  or  c o l l e c t e d ,  u n t i l  
a p p e a l  s h a l l  have been d u l y  made t o  
the commissioner o f  i n te r n a l  revenue,  
a c co rd ing  t o  the p r o v i s i o n s  o f  law in 
t h a t  r e g a r d ,  and t h e  r e g u l a t i o n s  o f  
the s e c r e t a r y  o f  the t rea sur y  e s t a b ­
l i s h e d  in  p u rs u an c e  t h e r e o f ,  and a 
d e c i s i o n  o f  said commissioner  s h a l l  be 
had thereon ,  un less  such s u i t  s h a l l  be 
b r o u g h t  w i t h i n  s i x  months f rom the  
t i m e  o f  s a i d  d e c i s i o n ,  o r  w i t h i n  
s i x  months f rom the  t ime t h i s  a c t  
takes  e f f e c t :  P r o v id e d , That i f  said
d e c i s i o n  s h a l l  be d e l a y e d  more than 
s i x  m ont hs  f r o m  t h e  d a t e  o f  su c h  
appeal ,  then said s u i t  may be brought  
at any time wi th in  twelve months from 
the date  o f  such a p p e a l . "  14 S t a t .  152.



26

c i a l . 17 S t a t .  269,  No such exhaust ion

requi rement ,  on the o ther  hand was imposed 

as a p r e c o n d i t i o n  o f  s u i t s  in the Court  o f
1 5/C l a i m s .  T h i s  l e g i s l a t i o n  makes c l e a r

that  the Congress  which enacted the 1871 

C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t  knew how t o  w r i t e  an 

exhaust ion requirement  i n t o  a s ta tu te  and 

did  so whenever i t  wanted t o  r e qu i r e  the 

u t i l i z a t i o n  o f  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  r e m e d ie s  

p r i o r  t o  s u i t .  I t s  r e f u s a l  t o  p l a c e  such a 

requirement  in to  s e c t i o n  1 983 can on ly  be 

understood  as a d e l i b e r a t e  d e c i s i o n  not  t o  

i m p o s e  any s u c h  r e q u i r e m e n t  on t h o s e  

s e e k i n g  r e l i e f  a g a i n s t  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  

v i o l a t i n g  f e d e r a l  r i g h t s .

Had C o n g r e s s  i n t e n d e d  t o  impose  any 

e x h a u s t i o n  r e q u i r e m e n t ,  i t  i s  f a r  more 

l i k e l y  that  i t  would have been concerned

15/  10 S t a t .  612.



27

with exhaust ion o f  s ta te  j u d i c i a l  remedies 

than s t a t e  ad m i n i s t ra t i ve  remedies .  The 

v i o l a t i o n s  o f  f e d e r a l  r i g h t s  about which 

C o n g r e s s  was c o n c e r n e d ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  

v i o l e n c e  d i r e c t e d  a t  b l a c k s ,  f e d e r a l  

o f f i c i a l s  and un ion  s y m p a t h i z e r s ,  were ,  

then as now, r e dressed  by j u d i c i a l  a c t i o n .  

In the n ineteenth  century ad m i n i s t ra t i ve  

remedies  were so un tr i ed  and even uncommon 

that  i t  i s  f a r  more probab le  that  Congress 

would  have e x p e c t e d  any r e d r e s s  t o  come 

from the c o u r t s .  The s ta te  c ou r t s  were at 

l e a s t  marg ina l l y  more l i k e l y  t o  be indepen­

dent o f  l o c a l  p o l i t i c s  and pa ss i ons  than 

would e l e c t e d  o f f i c i a l s  dependent on popu­

l a r  support  f o r  c o nt in u at i o n  in o f f i c e .  A l ­

though s t a t e  j u d g e s  might  be o b l i g a t e d  

by the  Supremacy C la us e  t o  e n f o r c e  the  

C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  d o c t r i n e  

which re igned in 1871 was that  the f e d e r a l  

g o v e r n m e n t  c o u l d  n o t  i m p o s e  on s t a t e



28

e x e c u t i v e  o f f i c i a l s  any o b l i g a t i o n s  t o  

implement f e d e r a l  law. Monel l  v.  New York 

C i t y  Department  o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s , 436 

U.S.  658,  676-79 (1978) ( d i s c u s s i n g  Prigg 

v.  P en n s ly van ia , 16 Pet .  539 (1 84 2 ) ,  and 

Kentucky v.  Dennison, 24 How. 66 ( 1 8 6 1 ) ) .

The l e g i s l a t i v e  h i s t o r y  o f  s e c t i o n  

1983, however,  makes c l e a r  that  j u d i c i a l  

e x h a u s t i o n  was no t  t o  be r e q u i r e d .  The 

opponents  o f  the 1871 Act  we l l  understood 

that  i t  c onta ined  no requirement  o f  j u d i ­

c i a l  e x h a u s t i o n ,  and o b j e c t e d  t o  i t  on 

p r e c i s e l y  t h a t  g r o u n d .  R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  

Storm complained that  s e c t i o n  1

does  not even g iv e  the Sta te  c o u r t s  a 
chan ce  t o  t r y  q u e s t i o n s ,  o r  t o  show 
wh eth er  t h e y  w i l l  t r y  the  q u e s t i o n s  
that  might come b e f o r e  them under the 
f i r s t  s e c t i o n  o f  t h e  f o u r t e e n t h  
amendment,  f a i r l y  o r  n o t .  I t  t a k e s  
the whole qu e s t i o n  away from them in 
the beg inn ing .

Now these  q u e s t i o n s  could  a l l  be 
t r i e d ,  I take i t ,  in the S ta te  c o u r t s ,  
and by a w r i t  o f  e r r o r  . . .  c o u l d  be



29

brought  b e f o re  the Supreme Court f o r  
r e v i e w . . . .  But the f i r s t  s e c t i o n  does 
no t  a l l o w  t h a t  r i g h t .  I t  t a k e s  the  
w h o l e  q u e s t i o n  away a t  o n c e  and 
f o r e v e r  . . .  16/

S e n a t o r  Thurman o p p o s e d  t h a t  s e c t i o n

because o f  the c e n t r a l i z i n g  tendency 
o f  t r a n s f e r r i n g  a l l  mere  p r i v a t e  
s u i t s ,  as  w e l l  as p u n i s h m e n t  o f  
o f f e n s e s ,  f rom the  S t a t e  i n t o  the  
F e d e r a l  c o u r t s .  I do no t  say  t h a t  
t h i s  s e c t i o n  g i v e s  t o  the  F e d e r a l  
c ou r t s  e x c l u s i v e  j u r i s d i c t i o n .  I do 
not  suppose that  i t  i s  so unders toood .  
I t  l e a v e s  i t ,  I p r e s u m e ,  i n  t h e  
o p t i o n  t o  the  p e r s o n  who imag ines  
h i m s e l f  t o  be i n j u r e d  t o  sue  in  
the  S t a t e  c o u r t  o r  in the  F e d e r a l  
c o u r t ,  an o p t i o n  t h a t  he who has  
been l e a s t  in ju r ed ,  but who has some 
m a l i c e  t o  g r a t i f y ,  w i l l  be the  most  
l i k e l y  t o  a v a i l  h i m s e l f  o f .  1 7 /

The i n c l u s i o n o f t h i s  o b j e c t i o n in Thur-

man ' s "parade o f h o r r i b l e s "  i s p r e c i s e l y

the s o r t  o f e v i d e n c e  as t o  the  meaning

o f the  a c t  which Mr. J u s t i c e R e hn qu is t

1 6/  Cong.  G l o b e ,  42nd C o n g . ,  1s t  S e s s .
App. 86.

17/  Id.  App. 216.



30

t h o u g h t  c r i t i c a l  in  M o n e l l  v .  New York 

C i t y  Department  o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s , 436 

U.S.  658,  722 (1978 ) .

I I I .  THE PURPOSE OF EXHAUSTION AND THE 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 1983

A l t h o u g h  the  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s  o f f e r e d  

f o r  the exhaust ion r u le  are numerous, many 

are o b v i o u s l y  i n a p p l i c a b l e  here .  The most 

common a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  t h e  e x h a u s t i o n  

r e q u i r e m e n t  i s  where a p l a i n t i f f  s ee k s  

r e v i e w  by  t h e  c o u r t s  o f  a c t i o n  by a 

f e d e r a l  ag enc y  c h ar ge d  by s t a t u t e  w i th  

i m p l e m e n t i n g  t h e  s t a t u t e  on w h i c h  t h e  

p l a i n t i f f  r e l i e s .  See Myers v.  Bethlehem 

S h i p b u i l d i n g  C o r p . ,  303 U.S .  41 ( 1 9 3 8 ) .  

The c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  o f  e x p e r t i s e  and s t a t u ­

t o r y  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  r e l e v a n t  t o  such a case 

c l e a r l y  have no p l a c e  here .  The 1871 C i v i l  

R i g h t s  A c t  d i d  n o t  e s t a b l i s h  any s t a t e  

a g e n c i e s  t o  e n f o r c e  t h e  C o n s t i t u t i o n ;

n e i t h e r  did i t  d i r e c t  or  au thor i ze  s ta te



31

o f f i c i a l s  t o  pr ov i de  any a d m i n i s t ra t i v e  or  

j u d i c i a l  r e m e d i e s  f o r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

v i o l a t i o n s .  N o t h i n g  in  t h e  l a n g u a g e  

o f  the s t a t u t e  contemplates  that  the s t a t e s  

are t o  p l a y  any r o l e  in r e d r e ss i n g  v i o l a ­

t i o n s  o f  the C o n s t i t u t i o n .

I f  e x h a u s t i o n  i s  t o  be r e q u i r e d  i t  

must be f o r  reasons  o ther  than implementing 

o r  r e s p e c t i n g  a c o n g r e s s i o n a l l y  e s t a b l i s h e d  

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  scheme.  E x h a u s t i o n  in a 

case  such as t h i s  could  p l a u s i b l y  be urged 

t o  se rve  one o f  two purposes .  F i r s t ,  i f  an 

aggr i eved  p a r t y  were t o  o b t a i n  in the s ta te  

ad m i n i s t ra t i v e  proceeding  the r e l i e f  that  

would o t herwise  be sought in f e d e r a l  c o u r t ,  

the work o f  those  cour t s  would be reduced.  

S e c o n d ,  i f  t h e  v i c t i m ' s  i n j u r i e s  a r e  

re dressed  by the s ta te  i t s e l f ,  some p o t e n ­

t i a l  f o r  f e d e r a l - s t a t e  c o n f l i c t  might be 

avo ided .  We do not  suggest  that  e i t h e r  o f  

these  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s  are pe r s u a s i v e ,  but



32

o n l y  t h a t  i t  must be on a b a s i s  such as 

t h i s  t h a t  e x h a u s t i o n  i s  g r o u n d e d .  See 

McKart v .  U n i t ed  S t a t e s , 395 U.S .  185,  

193-95 (1969 ) .

A l l  the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s  that  might be 

advanced  in  t h i s  o r  any o t h e r  c a s e  f o r  

r e q u i r i n g  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  exhaust ion  r e s t  on 

one a b s o l u t e l y  e s s e n t i a l  assumption —  that  

the agency whose pr oc edures  must be pursued 

w i l l  make a s e r i o u s  and good f a i t h  e f f o r t  

t o  c o n s id e r  the p l a i n t i f f ' s  c la ims  and t o  

implement the same r u l e s  that  the p l a i n t i f f  

s e e k s  t o  e n f o r c e  in c o u r t .  Abse nt  t h a t  

assumption,  there  i s  no reason whatever t o  

b e l i e v e  that  any o f  the purposes  o f  exhaus­

t i o n  w i l l  be se rved .  I f  the agency i s  not  

a c t in g  in good f a i t h ,  no p o s s i b l e  r e l i e f  

can come o f  the agency p r o c e e d i n g s ,  and the 

f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  in  u l t i m a t e l y  g r a n t i n g  

r e l i e f  w i l l  h a v e  t o  d i s a p p r o v e  o f  t h e  

agency proce ed in g  as w e l l  as the i n i t i a l



33

v i o l a t i o n .  More s e r i o u s l y ,  an a g e n c y  

pr oc eed in g  in bad f a i t h  could manipulate an 

exhaust ion requirement to  s e v e r e l y  aggra­

vate  the v i o l a t i o n  that  has a l ready  o c c u r ­

red .  Rather than "b u i ld i n g  a r e c o r d , "  the 

pr oc ee d in g  could  be used as an o pp or tu n i t y  

t o  conduct  p r e - t r i a l  d i s c o v e r y  and then r e ­

shape the a g e nc y ' s  de f ense .  The r e s o l u t i o n  

o f  the underly ing  c laim could  be de layed in 

the  hope o f  e x h a u s t i n g  the  p l a i n t i f f ' s  

r e s o u r c e s  o r  h i s  or  her p a t i e n c e .

We do no t  c o nt en d  t h a t  t h i s  c r u c i a l  

assumption o f  agency good f a i t h  and minimal 

c o m p e te n c e  i s  m is t ak en  as t o  a l l  s t a t e  

a g e n c i e s ,  o r  u n j u s t i f i e d  on the f a c t s  o f  

t h i s  p a r t i c u l a r  case .  Rather,  we urge that  

t h i s  ass um pt io n  i s  t o t a l l y  i n c o n s i s t e n t  

with the f i n d i n g s  and c on c lu s i o n s  which led  

Congress t o  adopt the 1871 C i v i l  Rights  Ac t .  

The f o r t y - s e c o n d  Congress ,  we contend,  be ­

l i e v e d  that  s ta te  o f f i c i a l s  were c e r t a i n l y



- 34

u n a b l e ,  and in  most  c a s e s  u n w i l l i n g ,  t o  

comply with or  e n f o r c e  the United S ta tes  

C o n s t i t u t i o n .  In l i g h t  o f  that  f i n d i n g ,  

which l i e s  at the heart  o f  the 1871 A c t ,  we 

submi t  t h a t  C o n g r e s s  c an n o t  c o n c e i v a b l y  

have intended t o  r e q u i r e  aggr i eved  p a r t i e s ,  

p r i o r  t o  o b t a i n i n g  a c c e s s  t o  f e d e r a l  

c o u r t s ,  t o  s e e k  r e d r e s s  f r o m  t h e  v e r y  

s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  whom C o n g r e s s  c o n c l u d e d  

would deny i t .

One c r i t i c a l  purpose o f  the 1871 Act 

was " t o  p r o v id e  a f e d e r a l  remedy where the 

s t a t e  remedy, though adequate in t he o r y ,  

was not  a v a i l a b l e  in p r a c t i c e . "  Monroe v . 

Pape, 365 U.S 1 67, 1 74 (1 961) .  Congressman 

Stoughton as se r te d

The w h o l e  S o u t h ,  Mr.  S p e a k e r ,  i s  
r a p i d l y  d r i f t i n g  i n t o  a s t a t e  o f  
anarchy and b l oodshed ,  which renders  
the  w o r s t  Government  on the  f a c e  o f  
t h e  e a r t h  r e s p e c t a b l e  by way o f  
comparison.  There i s  no s e c u r i t y  f o r  
l i f e ,  person or  p r o p e r t y .  The S ta te  
a u t h o r i t i e s  and l o c a l  c o u r t s  are un­



35

a b l e  o r  u n w i l l i n g  t o  c h e c k  t h e  
e v i l  o r  p u n i s h  the  c r i m i n a l s .  18/

Re pr e se nt a t iv e  Perry exc la imed :

Where t h e s e  gangs  o f  a s s a s s i n s  
show t h e m s e l v e s ,  t h e  r e s t  o f  t h e  
peop le  l ook  on,  i f  not  with sympathy, 
a t  l e a s t  w i t h  f o r e b e  a r a n c e  . The
b o a s t e d  c o u r a g e  o f  the  South i s  not  
courage in t h e i r  p r es en c e .  S h e r i f f s ,  
having eyes  to  see ,  see not ;  judg es ,  
ha v in g  e a r s  t o  h e a r ,  hear  n o t ;  w i t ­
n e s s e s  c o n c e a l  the  t r u t h  o r  f a l s i f y  
i t ;  grand j u r i e s  act  as i f  they might 
be a c c o m p l i c e s .  In the  p r e s e n c e  o f  
t h e s e  gangs  a l l  the  a p p a r a t u s  and 
machinery o f  c i v i l  government,  a l l  the 
p r o c e s s e s  o f  j u s t i c e ,  skulk away as i f  
government and j u s t i c e  were cr imes and 
f e a r e d  d e t e c t i o n .  Among the  most  
dangerous things  an in jured  par ty  can 
do i s  t o  appeal  f o r  j u s t i c e .  Of the 
u n c o u n t e d  s c o r e s  and h u n d r e d s  o f  
a t r o c i o u s  m u t i l a t i o n s  and murders i t  
i s  c r e d i b l y  s t a t e d  t h a t  no t  one has 
been punished.  19/

Senator  Pool  argued that  the s t a t e  " c o u r t s

have been t r i e d ,  and the e xe c u t iv e  arm has

18/  Cong.  G l o b e ,  42nd C o n g . ,  1 s t  S e s s .  
321 .

19/  Id.  App. 78.



- 36

b e e n  t r i e d ,  and b o t h  h a ve  f a i l e d . "

R ep r es e nt a t iv e  Snyder noted that

m u l t i p l i e d  hundreds o f  l o y a l  p e o p l e ,  
b o t h  m a le  and f e m a l e ,  h a ve  b e e n  
whipped,  s courged ,  l a c e r a t e d ,  e x i l e d ,  
r o b b e d ,  and m u r d e r e d ,  b y  t h e s e  
demonish Klans.  . . .  Anarchy and v i o ­
l e n c e  are  supreme and the  a d h e r e n t s  
o f  the Government are u t t e r l y  unpro­
t e c t e d .  They appeal  in vain t o  S ta te  
a u t h o r i t y ,  and a r e  now b e f o r e  us 
as  hu mb le  s u p p l i a n t s  f o r  f e d e r a l  
p r o t e c t i o n .  21/

Senator  Morton argued

But i t  i s  sa id  these  crimes should be 
p u n i s h e d  by the  S t a t e s ;  t h a t  the y  
are a l ready  o f f e n s e s  aga inst  the laws 
o f  the S t a t e s ,  and the matter  should 
be l e f t  with the S t a t e s .  The answer 
t o  t h a t  i s ,  t h a t  the  S t a t e s  do not  
punish them; the S ta tes  do not p r o t e c t  
the  r i g h t s  o f  the  p e o p l e ;  th e  S t a t e  
c o u r t s  are power less  t o  r e dr e ss  these  
wrongs.  The gr ea t  f a c t  remains that  
l a r g e  c l a s s e s  o f  p e o p l e ,  numbering 
n e a r l y  one h a l f  in  some S t a t e s ,  are  
wi thout  l e g a l  remedy in the c o u r t s  o f  
t h e  S t a t e s .  S h o u l d  t h i s  f a c t  be 
over l ook ed  f o r  the sake o f  a theory?  
Sha l l  i t  be said  with any reason that

20/

20 / Id. App. 1 70

1 1 / I d . App. 1 99



37

i t  i s  p r oper  t o  l eave  the punishment 
o f  these  crimes t o  the S t a te s  when i t  
i s  a n o t o r i o u s  f a c t  that  the S t a te s  do 
not punish them. 22/

Senator  Osborn exp l a ine d :

I f  the S ta te  c ou r t s  had proven them­
s e l v e s  c o m p e t e n t  t o  s u p p r e s s  t h e  
l o c a l  d i s o r d e r s ,  o r  t o  m a i n t a i n  law 
and o r d e r ,  we s h o u ld  no t  have been 
c a l l e d  upon t o  l e g i s l a t e  upon t h i s  
s u b j e c t  at  a l l .  But the y  have not  
done s o .  We are  d r i v e n  by e x i s t i n g  
f a c t s  t o  p r o v i d e  f o r  t h e  s e v e r a l  
S t a t e s  in the  South what the y  have 
b e e n  u n a b l e  f u l l y  t o  p r o v i d e  f o r  
t h e m s e l v e s ,  i . e . ,  the  f u l l  and com­
p l e t e  ad m in i s t r a t i o n  o f  j u s t i c e  in the 
c o u r t s .  23/

Congresman Rainey remarked:

The qu e s t i o n  i s  sometimes asked,  Why 
do  n o t  t h e  c o u r t s  o f  l aw a f f o r d  
r e d r e s s ?  Why the n e c e s s i t y  o f  app ea l ­
ing t o  Congress?  We answer that  the 
c ou r t s  are in many in s ta n c e s  under the 
c o n t r o l  o f  those  who are whol ly  i n i m i ­
c a l  t o  the  i m p a r t i a l  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  
o f  law and e q u i t y .  What b e n e f i t  could  
r e s u l t  f rom an a p pe a l  t o  t r i b u n a l s

22/  I d . App. 252. 

23 /  Id.  at 653.



38

whose o f f i c e r s  a re  s e c r e t l y  in sym­
pathy with the very  e v i l  aga in s t  which 
we are s t r i v i n g .  24/

Senator  Pra t t  urged:

[0] f  the hundreds o f  ou t ra ges  commit­
t ed  upon l o y a l  p e o p l e  th r o u g h  the  
agency o f  t h i s  Klu Klux Klan o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n ,  [but]  not  one has been punished.  
This  d e f e c t  in the a d m in i s t ra t i o n  o f  
the  laws  d o e s  not  e x t e n d  t o  o t h e r  
c a s e s .  V i g o r o u s l y  enough are the laws 
en fo r c e d  aga inst  Union p e o p le .  They 
only  f a i l  in e f f i c i e n c y  when a man o f  
known Union sent iments ,  white or  b l a c k ,  
i n v o k e s  t h e i r  a i d .  Then ' J u s t i c e  
c l o s e s  the  d o o r  o f  her  t e m p l e s .  25/

Congressman Lowe argued

Whi l e  murder  i s  s t a l k i n g  ab road  in  
d i s g u i s e ,  whi le  whippings and l y n ch -  
ings  and banishment have been v i s i t e d  
upon u n o f f e n d i n g  Amer ican c i t i z e n s ,  
the  l o c a l  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s  have been 
f o u n d  i n a d e q u a t e  o r  u n w i l l i n g  t o  
apply the proper  c o r r e c t i v e .  Combina­
t i o n s ,  d a r k e r  than the  n i g h t  t h a t  
h ides  them, c o n s p i r a c i e s  wicked as the 
w o r s t  o f  f e l o n s  c o u l d  d e v i s e ,  have 
gone unwhipped o f  j u s t i c e .  Immunity 
i s  g iven  t o  c r ime ,  and the r e c o r d s  o f

1 1 / Id. at 394

25 / Id. at 505



39

the p u b l i c  t r i b u n a l s  are searched in 
v a i n  f o r  any e v i d e n c e  o f  e f f e c t i v e  
r e d r e s s . 2 6 /

Mr. Beat ty  a s s e r t e d :

[M]en  w e r e  m u r d e r e d ,  h o u s e s  w e r e  
burned,  women were ou t raged ,  men were 
s courged ,  and o f f i c e r s  o f  the law shot  
down; and the S ta te  made no s u c c e s s f u l  
e f f o r t  t o  br ing  the g u i l t y  t o  puni sh­
ment or  a f f o r d  p r o t e c t i o n  or  r e dr ess  
t o  t h e  o u t r a g e d  and i n n o c e n t . 2 7 /

R e c o g n i z i n g  t h a t  the  f o r t y - s e c o n d  

Congress b e l i e v e d  that  remedies nominal ly  

a v a i l a b l e  on the fa ce  o f  s t a t e  laws were 

not  a v a i l a b l e  in p r a c t i c e ,  ' Ju s t i c e  Rehn- 

q u i s t  urged in C i ty  o f  Columbus v.  Leonard 

443 U.S.  905 (1979) (Rehnquist ,  J . , d i s s e n t ­

ing from d e n ia l  o f  c e r t i o r a r i )  that  exhaus­

t i o n  might non ethe less  be requ i red  where a 

s t a t e  could  demonstrate in f a c t  " th at  there  

i s  an a v a i l a b l e  and adequate remedy."  The

26 / Id. at 374

27 / Id. at 428



40

p r a c t i c e  suggested  by ' J u s t i c e  Rehnquist  i s  

f a r  d i f f e r e n t  from any requirement  h i t h e r t o  

imposed by the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s ,  and would 

d e f e a t  r a t h e r  than advance  the  p u r p o s e s  

behind exhaust i on .

To put i t s e l f  o u t s i d e  the c a t e g o r y  o f  

cases  about which Congress was concerned ,  a 

s t a t e  would have t o  prove more than that  

some a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  procedure  e x i s t e d  in 

which the r e l i e f  sought in f e d e r a l  c our t  

was t e c h n i c a l l y  a v a i l a b l e .  A s t a t e  would 

have t o  demonstrate  by c l e a r  and c o n v i n c ­

i n g  e v i d e n c e  t h a t  s u c h  r e l i e f  was i  n 

f a c t  p rov ided  by that  p r o c e s s  t o  persons  

such as the p l a i n t i f f .  The r e s o l u t i o n  o f  

such c la ims  would n e c e s s a r i l y  d e f e a t  the 

v e r y  p u r p o s e s  o f  e x h a u s t i o n .  Far f rom 

r e d u c i n g  t h e  w o r k l o a d  o f  t h e  f e d e r a l  

c o u r t s ,  t h i s  n o v e l  ap pr o ac h  would  f o r c e  

f e d e r a l  j u d g e s  t o  p r e s i d e  o v e r  o f t e n



41

l engthy  t r i a l s  r egard ing  the e n t i r e  c a s e ­

l oad and h i s t o r y  o f  the agency,  weighing 

the f r equency  and type o f  r e l i e f  awarded, 

a s c e r t a i n i n g  wh ether  r e l i e f  was e q u a l l y  

a v a i l a b l e  in a l l  r e l e va n t  types  o f  c a s e s ,  

and search ing f o r  m e r i t o r i o u s  c la ims  that  

might have been w r on g f u l l y  den ied .  Often 

such hear ings  would be more time consuming 

and complex than the ac tua l  t r i a l  on the 

m e r i t s .  In a d d i t i o n ,  r a t her  than d e f e r r i n g  

t o  s ta te  a u t h o r i t i e s  on the assumption that  

t h e y  would a c t  c o m p e t e n t l y  and in good 

f a i t h ,  the f e d e r a l  c o ur t s  would be requ i red  

t o  s i t  in judgment on the ac tua l  a b i l i t i e s  

and c h a r a c t e r  o f  t h e  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  

i n v o lv e d ,  a p r o c e s s  v i r t u a l l y  c e r t a i n  t o  

aggravate  f e d e r a l - s t a t e  r e l a t i o n s .  This 

e n t i r e  p r o c e s s ,  m o r e o v e r ,  w o u ld  be an 

attempt by the s t a t e  t o  prove  t ha t ,  however 

j u s t i f i e d  the Congress might have been in



42

e n a c t i n g  the  1871 C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t ,  i t s  

u n d e r l y i n g  f i n d i n g s  w e r e  e r r o n e o u s  as  

app l i ed  t o  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  agency.  The 

f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  do  n o t  o r d i n a r i l y  s i t  

t o  r e c o n s i d e r  the  wisdom o r  a c c u r a c y  o f  

c o n g r e s s i o n a l  f i n d i n g s .

We r e c o g n i z e  that  c i rcumstances  in the 

S o u t h  h a v e  c h a n g e d  g r e a t l y  s i n c e  t h e  

ena c tm ent  o f  the  1871 C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t .  

Some a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  remedies  now in e x i s ­

t e n c e  a r e  f a i r  o r  e f f i c i e n t  o r  b o t h ;  

o t h e r s ,  r e g r e t t a b l y ,  a re  n e i t h e r .  But 

Congress gave the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  no mandate 

t o  c o n d u c t  t r i a l s  on t h e  e f f i c a c y  and 

b i a s e s  o f  each o f  the thousands o f  s ta te  

ag enc i es  that  abound t oday ,  and no author ­

i t y  t o  p i c k  and c h o s e  when s e c t i o n  1983 

would a f f o r d  i t s  p r o t e c t i o n s .

R a t h e r ,  C o n g r e s s  p r o v i d e d  f o r  the  

p o s s i b i l i t y  o f  improvement in the c o n d i ­

t i o n s  which i t  found in 1871 by p er m i t t in g



43

a g g r i e v e d  p a r t i e s  t o  u t i l i z e  any s t a t e  

r e m e d i e s ,  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  j u d i c i a l  o r  

l e g i s l a t i v e ,  which the y  b e l i e v e d  t o  be 

e f f i c a c i o u s .  Such i n d i v i d u a l  d e c i s i o n s ,  by 

p e o p l e  who w i l l  o f t e n  u n d e r s t a n d  t h e  

r e a l i t i e s  o f  the agen c i e s  f a r  b e t t e r  than a 

f e d e r a l  judge ,  impose none o f  the burdens 

on f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  o r  d i f f i c u l i t e s  f o r  

f e d e r a l - s t a t e  r e l a t i o n s  inherent  in J u s t i c e  

R e h n g u i s t ' s  p r o p o s a l .  T h i s  s t a t u t o r y  

system p r o v id e s  s ta te  agenc i es  anxious f o r  

an op p or tu n i t y  t o  r e s o l v e  d i sp u t e s  i n t e r ­

n a l l y  w i th  a p o w e r f u l  i n c e n t i v e  t o  make 

genuine ad m i n i s t ra t i ve  r e l i e f  a v a i l a b l e  in 

p r a c t i c e  in o r d e r  t o  pe r s u a d e  a g g r i e v e d  

p a r t i e s  t o  seek r e dr ess  there  rather  than 

in f e d e r a l  c o u r t .  Regardless  o f  whether 

t h i s  Court might today choose  a d i f f e r e n t  

a p p r o a c h ,  t h i s  i s  the  scheme e n a c t e d  by 

C o n g r e s s  when i t  a d o pt ed  th e  1871 C i v i l



Rights  A c t ,  and i t  i s  the scheme which the 

f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  must adhere  t o  u n t i l  and 

un less  Congress  d i r e c t s  o t h er w is e .

IV. THE DEBATES CONCERNING THE SHERMAN
AMENDMENT_________________________________ _

In t h i s  c a s e ,  as in Monroe, Monel l  and 

Owen, c o n s i d e r a b l e  l i g h t  i s  thrown on the 

i n t e n t  o f  C o n g r e s s  by t h e  c o n t r o v e r s y  

s u r r o u n d i n g  t h e  Sherman Amendment.  The 

f i r s t  c on fe r e n c e  r e p or t  on the 1871 C i v i l  

Rights  Act c onta ined  a p r o v i s i o n  dr a f t e d  

by Senator  Sherman which imposed on a c i t y  

o r  county s t r i c t  l i a b i l i t y  f o r  any i n j u r i e s  

caused by a r i o t  w i th in  i t s  bor de r s .  This 

p r o p o s a l  was r e j e c t e d  by the  House on a 

v a r i e t y  o f  g r o u n d s .  M one l l  v .  New York 

C i t y  Department o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s , 436 U.S 

at  6 6 9 - 6 8 3 .  C o n g r e s s  then  a d op t e d  l a n ­

guage,  now c o d i f i e d  as 42 U.S.C.  § 1 986,

imposing l i a b i l i t y  on any person who had

- 44 -



45

knowledge o f  a c o n s p i r a c y  t o  v i o l a t e  the

v i c t i m ' s  c i v i l  r i g h t s  and f a i l e d  t o  use h i s
28 /

o r  her  power t o  prevent  i t .

28/  In r e j e c t i n g  the a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  the 
d o c t r i n e  o f  r espondeat  s u p e r i o r  t o  impose 
on c i t i e s  o r  c o u n t i e s  s t r i c t  l i a b i l i t y  f o r  
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n s  commit ted  by 
t h e i r  o f f i c i a l s ,  Monel l  r e l i e d  h e a v i l y  on 
the h i s t o r y  o f  the Sherman Amendment. 436 
U.S.  at 693-94.  Monell  reasoned that  the 
d e b a t e s  on t h a t  amendment  p r o v i d e d  a 
c r i t i c a l  i n s i g h t  i n t o  Congress '  views as to  
the  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  under  which l i a b i l i t y  
should be imposed on a defendant .

One a s p e c t  o f  the  Sherman amendment 
debates  r e l i e d  on by Monell  was o p p o s i t i o n  
t o  the  amendment on the  ground t h a t  i t  
imposed l i a b i l i t y  on a l o c a l  government  
even i f  i t  "d id  not  know o f  an impending 
o r  e n s u i n g  r i o t  o r  d i d  n o t  h a ve  t h e  
wherewithal  t o  do anything about i t . "  436 
U.S at 692,  n . 57 .  Senator  Stevenson argued 
t h e  amendment  " u n d e r t a k e s  t o  c r e a t e  a 
c o r p o r a t e  l i a b i l i t y  f o r  p e r s o n a l  i n j u r y  
which no prudence or  f o r e s i g h t  could  have 
p r e s e n t e d . "  Cong. Globe ,  42nd Cong. ,  1st  
Sess .  762. Repre se nta t ive  Kerr o b j e c t e d ,

There i s  . . .  a t o t a l  and a b s o l u t e  
a b s e n c e  o f  n o t i c e ,  c o n s t r u c t i v e  o r  
impl i ed ,  w i thin  any decent  l i m i t s  o f  
l aw  o r  r e a s o n .  . . .  Under  t h i s



46

The language adopted in p l a c e  o f  the 

Sherman amendment,  and now c o n t a i n e d  in 

s e c t i o n  1 9 8 6 ,  r e p r e s e n t s  t h e  v i e w  o f  

Congress as t o  the amount o f  knowledge and 

degree  o f  a c t i o n  or  i n a c t i o n  ap propr ia te  

f o r  the im po s i t i o n  o f  the l i a b i l i t y  by the 

f e d r a l  c o u r t s .  The s u b s t i t u t e  amendment 

p r o v i d e d :

[A]ny person or  persons  having knowl­
edge  o f  the  wrongs  c o n s p i r e d  t o  be 
d o n e  and m e n t i o n e d  i n  t h e  s e c o n d  
s e c t i o n  o f  t h i s  a c t  are  ab out  t o  be 
committed,  and having power t o  prevent  
o r  aid in preve nt in g  the same, sh a l l  
n e g l e c t  or  r e f u s e  t o  do so ,  and such 
wrongful  act  s h a l l  be committed;  such 
person or  per sons  s h a l l  be l i a b l e  to  
t h e  p e r s o n  i n j u r e d ,  o r  h i s  l e g a l  
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  Id .  at 804.

28/  c ont inued

s e c t i o n  i t  i s  no t  r e q u i r e d ,  b e f o r e  
l i a b i l i t y  a t t a c h ,  t h a t  i t  s h a l l  be 
known that  there  was any i n t e n t i o n  t o  
commit these  c r imes,  so as t o  f a s t e n  
l i a b i l i t y  j u s t l y  upon the muni c i pa l ­
i t y .  _Id. at  788.

See a l s o  i d . at 791 (Rep. W i l l a r d . )



47

The f o r m  o f  k n o w l e d g e  c a l l e d  f o r  was 

knowledge p r i o r  t o  the a l l e g e d  v i o l a t i o n  

that  the ac t  subsequent ly  complained o f  was 

t o  o c c u r ;  the a c t i o n  requ i red  was f a i l u r e  

t o  p r e v e n t  t h a t  harm. T h i s  c o m b i n a t i o n  

o f  f o r e k n o w l e d g e  and l a c k  o f  p r e v e n t i o n  

r e p r e s e n t s  a c a r e f u l l y  framed balance  o f  

the competing c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  urged in the 

c o n g r e s s i o n a l  de b at es .  These p r e r e q u i s i t e s  

t o  l i a b i l i t y  were not  o n l y  the  minimum 

c o n s e r v a t i v e s  would ac cept  as a p r e c o n d i ­

t i o n  t o  s u i t ,  but the most the suppor ters  

o f  R ec on s t r u c t i o n  would concede .

The i m p o s i t i o n  o f  an e x h a u s t i o n  

r e q u i r e m e n t  would a l t e r  t h i s  b a l a n c e  in 

s u b s t a n t i a l  manner c l e a r l y  not contemplated 

by Congress .  F i r s t ,  in a d d i t i o n  t o  knowing 

t h a t  a v i o l a t i o n  was about  t o  o c c u r ,  a 

c i t y  would have t o  be n o t i f i e d  a f t e r  the 

v i o l a t i o n  that  the v i c t im  wanted r e d r e s s .

S e c o n d ,  o v e r  and above  hav ing  f a i l e d  t o



48

prevent  the v i o l a t i o n ,  the c i t y  would have 

t o  f a i l  as w e l l  t o  p r o v i d e  a s u b s e q u e n t  

remedy. During the debates  on the Sherman 

amendment Senator  Thurman a c t u a l l y  advo­

ca ted  j u s t  such an exhaust ion requi rmeent ,  

urg ing  that  p l a i n t i f f s  be re qu i r ed  t o  g iv e  

c i t i e s  a w r i t t e n  n o t i c e  o f  c la im wi th in  7 

days  o f  the  com m is s i o n  o f  the  o f f e n s e ,  

c i t i n g  a s t a t u t e  w i t h  such a p r o v i s i o n  

enacted under George IV. Id .  at 770. This  

p r o p o s a l  f ound  no s u p p o r t  in  C o n g r e s s ,  

h o w e v e r ,  and was n o t  i n c l u d e d  i n  t h e  

language u l t i m a t e l y  adopted.

I f  C o n g r e s s  d i d  no t  c o n t e m p l a t e  any 

exhaust i on  requirement  under s e c t i o n  1986, 

a f o r t i o r i , i t  c a n n o t  have i n t e n d e d  one 

under s e c t i o n  1983. Unlike a s e c t i o n  1986 

d e f e n d a n t ,  who i s  l i a b l e  m e r e l y  f o r  

f a i l i n g  t o  prevent  harm to  the v i c t i m ,  a 

s e c t i o n  1983 defendant  must a c t u a l l y  commit



49

o r  ca us e  the  v i o l a t i o n  i t s e l f .  M o n e l l , 

436 U . S .  a t  6 9 2 .  Thus a s e c t i o n  1983 

defendant  by d e f i n i t i o n  knows more and does  

more than a s e c t i o n  1 986 de fendant .  And, 

s i n c e  the  1983 d e f e n d a n t  i s  the  a c t i v e  

e v i l d o e r ,  n o t  m e r e l y  a n e g l e c t f u l  b y ­

s t a n d e r ,  i t  i s  f a r  l e s s  l i k e l y  t h a t  an 

a p p e a l  f o r  r e d r e s s  would s u c c e e d  t o  the  

f o r m e r  t h a n  t o  t h e  l a t t e r .  I f  a c i t y  

f a i l e d  t o  p r e v e n t  a known c o n s p i r a c y  o f  

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  from v i o l a t i n g  a v i c t i m ' s  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t s ,  exhaust i on  would not 

be a p r e c o n d i t i o n  o f  a s e c t i o n  1 986 s u i t  

a g a i n s t  the  c i t y ;  C on gr es s  ca nn ot  have 

intended t o  impose such a requirement  on a 

s e c t i o n  1983 s u i t  a g a i n s t  the  p o l i c e m e n

themse lves .



50

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons  the judgment o f  

the c our t  o f  appeal s  should be re ve rs e d .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  submitted,

'JACK GREENBERG 
'JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I  
BILL LANN LEE*/
ERIC SCHNAPPER 

Sui te  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York,  New York 10019

At torneys  f o r  NAACP Legal  
Defense and Educa­
t i o n a l  Fund, I n c . ,  
as Amicus Curiae

* /  Counsel  o f  Record



MeiieN psess inc~-n. V. c. " 21?