Document: 412 U.S. 507 93 S.Ct. 2222 37 L.Ed.2d 109 CITY OF KENOSHA, WISCONSIN et al., Appellants,v.Peter G. BRUNO al. No. 72—658. Argued April 18, 1973. Decided June 11, Syllabus Appellees, who apparently because of alleged nude dancing at their retail liquor establishments were denied renewal one-year licenses, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against the cities Racine Kenosha. Appellees claimed deprivation procedural due process arising from cities' failure to hold full-blown adversary hearings before refusing issue license renewals, unconstitutionality local licensing scheme. The Wisconsin Attorney General intervened as a party defendant in proceedings. cases submitted on cross-motions summary judgment stipulations fact. A three-judge District Court held that light 'equitable nature' actions it had jurisdiction 28 1343(3) court declared statutory scheme unconstitutional enjoined its enforcement. Held: 1. city is not 'person' where equitable sought, any more than damages are Monroe v. Pape, 365 167, 187, 81 473, 484, 5 492, Court, therefore, erred concluding over complaints since only two municipalities named defendants. Pp. 511—513. 2. remand should consider jurisdictional questions presented by State General's intervention availability 1331 jurisdiction, well decisions Board Regents Roth, 408 564, 92 2701, 33 548, Perry Sindermann, 593, 2694, 570, which germane issue, supervening decision California LaRue, 409 109, 390, 34 342, dealing with broad state authority distribution. 513—515. 346 F.Supp. 43, vacated remanded. AT LeRoy L. Dalton, Madison, Wis., appellants. James A. Walrath, Milwaukee, appellees Sleepy's Inc. others. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 owners establishments, holders tavern licenses1 issued law appellants, Acting pursuant Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 176.05(1), (8) (1957 Supp.1973), appellees' applications licenses after holding public 'legislative' hearings. Alleging, inter alia, deprivations Fourteenth Amendment rights such denials and, amended complaints, (8), these federal civil naming each case appropriate municipality defendant. entered temporary restraining orders commanding immediate issuance convened district 2281 rule constitutionality procedure. Thereafter, was allowed intervene his own motion. On judgment, statute This direct appeal followed. 2 Under scheme, governing bodies authorized grant 'to persons entitled this chapter they deem proper keep places within respective towns, villages, or sale intoxicating liquors. . .' 176.05(1) (1957).2 has been interpreted Supreme require 'legislative type hearing wherein one given notice fair opportunity position issue,' situations have an application license. ex rel. Ruffalo Common Council City Kenosha, 38 Wis.2d 518, 524, 157 N.W.2d 568, 571 (1968). Such may be rejected 'without statement clerk's minutes reasons rejection,' 176.05(8) (Supp.1973),3 courts certiorari review whether refusals councils arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory. Council, supra. 3 In denials,4 stipulated question referred License Welfare Committee conducted Committee, present heard oral objections taverns.5 After hearing, followed Committee's recommendation voted deny applications, adverse effects community bars. 4 It also all meetings, including speak, but no speaker sworn. None testimony recorded verbatim transcript made. advised could cross-examine speakers, did request opportunity. And there advance written specification charges Relying Seventh Circuit decisions,6 (as single judge) 'in nature action' 1343(3).7 Concluding Racine's interest being able other safeguard legislative 'minimal,' balanced appellees, assertedly occupations investments, determined Due Process Clause requires 'adversary-type applicant timely urged denial (of license) present, confront, witnesses oath transcript.' 51. 6 * Neither questioned 'it duty see (district court), defined limited statute, exceeded.' Louisville & Nashville R. Co. Mottley, 211 149, 152, 29 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). action 1983,8 therefore 1343. agreed. defendants however, Kenosha Racine. considering reach 492 (1961), examined history surrounding enactment said: 7 'The response Congress proposal make liable certain purview Act 20, 1871, so antagonistic we cannot believe word used particular include them.' Id., 191, S.Ct., 486. 8 relied Schnell Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 (CA7 1969), Adams Park Ridge, 293 585 1961), sought. Adams, supra,9 turn, Court's per curiam Holmes Atlanta, 350 879, 76 141, 100 776 (1955). But none three opinions meaning discussed. support proposition same section prayed for, least seriously weakened following observation Monroe, supra, U.S., 486 n. 50: 9 'In few named, along officials, violations alleged. See, e.g., Douglas Jeannette, 319 157, 63 877, 87 1324; 776. dealt our raised those cases, either parties Since municipal corporation 1983, inference contrary can longer drawn cases.' 10 We find nothing discussed language actually Congress, suggest generic intended bifurcated corporations depending sought them. Since, 'Congress undertake bring ambit of' id., outside purposes damages. wrong 11 As previously noted, filed joined actions. having concluded entertain original 1343, understandably address itself would cure defect now exist complaints. observed 'were proper, plaintiffs herein assert necessary controversy requirement Title 1331.' F.Supp., 50. although complaint allegation investment $20,000, answered putting proof amount controversy. decided fact, stipulation filed, say record affirmatively established. See Hague CIO, 307 496, 507—508, 59 954, 960, 83 1423 (1939), therein cited. With respect denials, proceedings single-judge requisite complaint, first time challenged constitutional validity No answer prior entry 12 benefit neither briefs, arguments, nor explicit consideration party, view below. issues. II 13 Appellees' revoked suspended. Their claim arises renew licenses. Our last year 548 (1972), 570 'liberty' 'property' protected without Amendment. discuss recent followed, part, Appeals reversed Roth. made evaluation interests might if required Perry, 14 also, 342 (1972). There again while Twenty-first abrogate process, Constantineau, 400 433, 91 507, 27 515 (1971), States distribution liquor. regulations prohibiting drink premises necessarily obscene performances facially constitutional. 15 We, addressing reconsider LaRue. cause remanded consistent opinion. 16 ordered. 17 Judgment directions. 18 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 19 Although I join add unimpeachably correct conclusion appellants failed comply requirements denying Nevertheless, Racine, based Moor County Alameda, 411 693, 1785, 36 596 (1973); (1961). alternative ground agree existence not, record, clearly If prove $10,000 controversy, then available. Bell Hood, 327 678, 66 773, 90 939 (1946); cf. Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents Federal Bureau Narcotics, 403 388, 1999, 619 (1971) relief. 20 DOUGLAS, dissenting part. 21 expressed my doubts 722, 1802, (dissenting opinion) bars municipality. history* construction related fear mulcting damage awards unauthorized acts police officers. Pape read containing dicta remedy way injunction barred suits Yet do think decide full briefing considered argument. 22 do, concur reconsideration 342. 23 APPENDIX TO OPINION MR. JUSTICE DISSENTING IN PART 24 subject largely Congress' rejection Sherman Amendment, provided compensation individuals county, city, parish caused riots, etc. Two theories debates rejecting amendment. 25 notion liability destroy paralyze governments. Also, thought unjust governments (and indirectly citizenry large) when bore responsibility. Senate passed amendment, Senator Stevenson stated opposition: 26 'This amendment wholly ignores created omission direct, absolute corporate duty. now, time, undertakes create personal injury prudence foresight prevented. 'But, President, unconstitutional. attempted carried out will government every county .. Let recovered East West lien upon property dollar treasury. credit means discharge contracts most solemn obligations operation act applied judgment. 'I reason lien. extent, must utterly destructive municipalities! whence does Government derive power manner form touch revenues agencies? Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 762. Senators Casserly Bayard similar concerns. 763—764, House, Congressman Kerr stated: 30 'There is, total absence notice, constructive implied, decent limits reason. bill significantly silent counties parishes cities. required, shall attach, known intention commit crimes, fasten justly takes gives another mere force, right, guilt knowledge ..' 788. 31 791 (statement Cong. Willard). Farnsworth concerned 'put hand national into (local government') treasury.' 799. 32 strain, however. Brooks viewed raising old struggle between Federalists Democrats. 790. words Poland, House managers Conference '(w)ith subdivisions do. impose them; them whatever.' 793. He further: 'But enforcing liability, existing contract, law, courts, very widely different thing devolving new Government, them, control whatever. '. Counties towns government, exercise sphere extent powers delegated purpose carrying laws policy State, duties liabilities 794. 35 finally defeated substitute Poland understand vote solemnly obligation town organizations, instrumentality administration law.' 804. 795 Burchard) 799 Farnsworth). To directed devastating effect municipalities, seems defeat affect vel non action. One may, course, argue sweeping statements others (however defective argument developed doctrine) authorize subdivision indicated go whole allow even matter never faced. appellee Misurelli, appears partner holder expired held, substance appellees. 176.05 provides: '(1) Authority Each board, village board common council conditions restrictions contained, member sell directly offer sale, person, firm, holds applies bond, material, product, licensee prospective said business.' '(8) Annual meetings. All boards councils, duly committees meet later May session day thereafter, long necessary, acting 15, granted, ensuing year, prevent body granting time. soon approved, duplicate copy thereof forwarded secretary revenue. annual meeting rejection.' utilized basis main primarily factual background disposition. Robers, (1969), 1343 commenced person: '(3) redress deprivation, color ordinance, regulation, custom usage, privilege immunity secured Constitution United providing equal citizens 'Every person who, custom, Territory, subjects, causes subjected, citizen rights, privileges, immunities laws, injured equity, order proceeding redress.' simply previous circuit independent analysis. Appendix

Category: 8