Revisionist Municipal Liability

The current constitutional torts system under 42U.S.C. § 1983 affords little relief to victims ofgovernment wrongdoing. Victims of police brutalityseeking accountability and compensation from localpolice departments find their remedies severely limitedbecause the municipal liability doctrine demandsplaintiffs meet near-impossible standards of proofrelating to policies and causation.This Article provides a revisionist historical accountof the origin of the Supreme Court's municipal liabilitydoctrine. Most private claims for damages againstcities or police departments do not implicate thedoctrine's early federalism concerns over protractedfederal judicial interference with local governance.Meanwhile, the federal government imposes extensivereforms on local police departments through the ViolentCrime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The resulting system of bifurcated municipalliability for police misconduct ignores history.

Itpermits government-initiated,systemic injunctive reliefclaims to flow readily, but effectively bans individualvictims' discrete damages claims.This Article proposes making it easierfor individualsto sue local governments for police brutality. Reducingthe standard for damages relief does not offendfederalism principles and realizes objectives critical tothe constitutional remedial system: compensation,trust, vindication of rights, and appropriateassignment of responsibility. This Article proposes aremedial scheme authorizing civil actions for policebrutality victims against local governments for (1) apattern or practice of local government policemisconduct, and (2) isolated instances where a localpolice department lacks a policy and there is nationalconsensus among other local departments that thepolicy is necessary to prevent a particularconstitutional harm. The proposal also expandspotential individual officer liability to instances inwhich an officer ignores a specific policy of a localpolice department aimed at preventing wrongdoing