Opinion ID: 357298
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Respect for the proper role of Congress.

Text: 26 What kept the Bivens dissenters from joining with the rest of the Court was also a major cautionary signal to both Mr. Justice Harlan and the majority. All recognized that the implementation of constitutional guarantees is primarily a legislative task, as contrasted with the interpretive responsibilities of the judiciary. See Comment, Implying a Damage Remedy Against Municipalities Directly Under the Fourteenth Amendment: Congressional Action as an Obstacle to Extension of the Bivens Doctrine, 36 Md.L.Rev. 123, 145-46 (1976) (hereinafter referred to as Congressional Action ). The majority in Bivens, however, found no legislative scheme implementing the Fourth Amendment by allowing recovery against federal officers for their constitutional violations. 10 The Court thus found itself in a field into which Congress had not entered, and in that setting felt free to provide an appropriate remedy. 27 Although Congress may have been relatively inactive in legislative protection for constitutional violations by federal officers, it has moved rather spectacularly into the parallel field involving state action. This is illustrated not only by section 1983 and other 19th Century civil-rights statutes, but also by such complex and comprehensive legislation as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments. 28 In spite of its active awareness of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment against state and local governments, however, Congress has deliberately chosen to exclude vicarious liability against municipalities from the scope of section 1983. 11 Indeed, even after Monroe held that municipalities were totally protected from section 1983 liability, Congress resisted attempts to counter the effects of that decision by amending the statute, see Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1059-60 (3d Cir. 1977) (Garth, J., dissenting and concurring), choosing instead to proceed more cautiously in the field of municipal liability. 12 Surely it is appropriate for the federal judiciary to respect that considered legislative reticence. 29 This is especially so in light of the distinct enforcement roles of Congress under the terms of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 13 appears to anticipate a central role for Congress in implementing the amendment's guarantees. An analogous provision is not found in the Fourth Amendment, the basis of the remedy in Bivens. See id. at 1059 (Garth, J., dissenting and concurring); Raffety v. Prince George's County, 423 F.Supp. 1045, 1058 (D.Md.1976); Congressional Action, supra, 36 Md.L.Rev. at 146-47. We believe section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment counsels an especially heightened sensitivity to the traditional role of Congress in implementing constitutional principles through the legislative process. In dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment, we would show inadequate deference to that role were we to use the courts to accomplish what the legislature has legitimately refused to do. 30