Civil Rights Outline

Civil Rights Outline Shon Hopwood

1. Implied Causes of Action through a Federal Statute

   1. Gonzaga v. Doe (1992): Courts first determine whether Congress intended to create a federal right. Court holds that the question whether Congress intended to create a private right of action is definitively answered in the negative where a statute by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class. For a statute to create such private rights, its text must be “phrased in terms of the persons benefited. But even where a statute is phrased in such explicit rights-creating terms, a plaintiff suing under an implied right of action still must show that the statute manifests an intent “to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.”

2. What Rights Can Be Enforced in a § 1983 Action?

   1. Maine v. Thiboutot (1980): § 1983 encompasses violations of federal statutory as well as const. law

   2. A determination that § 1983 is available to remedy a statutory or constitutional violation involves a two-step inquiry:

      1. Plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right. Courts consider whether the provision in question creates obligations binding on the governmental unit or rather does no more than express a congressional preference for certain kinds of treatment. Courts have also asked whether the provision in question was intended to benefit the putative class. Golden State Transit v. City of LA (1989) p. 120.

         1. Gonzaga v. Doe (1992): We made clear that unless Congress “speak[s] with a clear voice,” and manifests an “unambiguous” intent to confer individual rights, federal funding provisions provide no basis for private enforcement by § 1983.

         2. With this principle in mind, there is no question that FERPA's nondisclosure provisions fail to confer enforceable rights. To begin with, the pro- visions entirely lack the sort of “rights-creating” language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to create new rights. Unlike the individually focused terminology of Titles VI and IX (“No person ... shall ... be subjected to discrimination”), FERPA's provisions speak only to the Secretary of Education, directing that “[n]o funds shall be made available” to any “educational agency or institution” which has a prohibited “policy or practice.” This focus is two steps removed from the interests of individual students and parents and clearly does not confer the sort of “individual entitlement” that is enforceable under § 1983. These administrative procedures squarely distinguish this case from others, where an aggrieved individual lacked any federal review mechanism, and further counsel against our finding a congressional intent to create individually enforceable private rights.

         3. FERPA's nondisclosure provisions further speak only in terms of institutional policy and practice, not individual instances of disclosure

         4. Our conclusion that FERPA's nondisclosure provisions fail to confer enforceable rights is buttressed by the mechanism that Congress chose to provide for enforcing those provisions. Congress expressly authorized the Secretary of Education to “deal with violations ” of the Act.

      2. Comprehensive remedial scheme: Even when the P has asserted a federal right, the D may show that Congress specifically foreclosed a remedy under § 1983, by providing a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for protection of a federal right. The availability of administrative mechanisms to protect P’s interests is not necessarily sufficient to demonstrate that Congress intended to foreclose a § 1983 remedy. Rather, the statutory framework must be such that allowing a P to bring a § 1983 action would be inconsistent with Congress’ carefully tailored scheme. The burden is on the D. And courts do not lightly conclude that a Congressional remedy supplants § 1983. Golden State

         1. Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a statute confers an individual right, the right is presumptively enforceable by § 1983. Gonzaga

         2. Express right to sue under the statute; court liable to say that is your only right

         1. State funds cut is not comprehensive remedy

         2. Can’t use § 1983 to enforce Title 6 and 7

         3. Caps on damages is a factor for showing that § 1983 is not a remedy

         4. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable (2008): This Court has never held that an implied right of action had the effect of precluding suit under § 1983, likely because of the difficulty of discerning congressional intent in such a situation. We conclude that Title IX was not meant to be an exclusive mechanism for addressing gender discrimination in schools, or a substitute for § 1983 suits as a means of enforcing constitutional rights.

         5. Preiser v. Rodriguez: state prisoner cannot pursue equitable relief for lost good time credits under § 1983 because federal habeas corpus provides the exclusive remedy.

         6. Levin v. Madigan (7th Cir. 2012): the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not preclude a § 1983 claim for constitutional rights. Nothing in the statutory text precludes a § 1983 claim; ADEA is not designed to remedy constitutional claims and provides a mechanism to enforce only the substantive rights created by the ADEA; ADEA only allows a suit against an employment agency or labor organization, not against a D; ADEA expressly limits claims by certain individuals; and state employees suing under ADEA are left without a damages remedy since such claims are barred by 11th Amendment immunity.

3. Civil Rights Actions Against Federal Defendants

   1. Two-step process for finding implied Bivens actions:

      1. Alternative remedy: is there an existing process for protecting the constitutionally recognized interest to refrain from providing a new Bivens remedy?

      2. Even in the absence of an alternative, federal courts must make a remedial determination paying particular heed to any special factors counseling hesitation before authorizing a new kind of federal litigation.

   2. In 30 years of Bivens jurisprudence, the Court has extended Bivens only twice, to provide an otherwise nonexistent cause of action...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Rights Outlines.