Standalone Municipal Liability

Authors

Avery Figo Comar, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, municipalities may not be held liable for constitutional violations attributable to an errant employee’s actions. Instead, Monell dictates that municipal liability is appropriate only when the municipality itself is “the moving force” behind the constitutional violation. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits, based on a flawed reading of the Supreme Court case City of Los Angeles v. Heller, adopt an inapposite approach to the relationship between municipal and individual liability. Although every other circuit allows municipal claims to proceed absent any individual claim arising from the same underlying facts, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have never definitively adopted this approach. Consequently, when Fourth or Fifth Circuit plaintiffs bring claims against municipalities without accompanying claims against individual employees—or when their accompanying individual claims are dismissed—the municipal claims stand on uncertain ground. This ambiguity erodes otherwise valid pathways to liability for plaintiffs whose constitutional injuries are properly attributable to the municipality qua municipality, rather than an individual municipal employee. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits should recognize the viability of standalone municipal liability, consistent with the approach taken in all other circuits applying the Monell doctrine.

Recommended Citation

Avery F. Comar, Standalone Municipal Liability, 124 Mich. L. Rev. 571 (2025).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol124/iss3/5