Court Opinion

ID: 9430606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:30:11.556961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.580344
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens join, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that this case must be remanded for a new trial on damages. Certain portions of the Court’s opinion, however, can be read to suggest that damages in § 1983 cases are necessarily limited to “out-of-pocket loss,” “other monetary harms,” and “such injuries as ‘impairment of reputation . . . , personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.’” See ante, at 307. I do not understand the Court so to hold, and I write separately to emphasize that the violation of a constitutional right, in proper cases, may itself constitute a compensable injury.
The appropriate starting point of any analysis in this area is this Court’s opinion in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247 (1978). In Carey, we recognized that “the basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award should be to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Id., at 254; see ante, at 306-307. We explained, however, that application of that principle to concrete cases was not a *314simple matter. 435 U. S., at 257. “It is not clear,” we stated, “that common-law tort rules of damages will provide a complete solution to the damages issue in every § 1983 case.” Id., at 258. Rather, “the rules governing compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights should be tailored to the interests protected by the particular right in question — just as the common-law rules of damages themselves were defined by the interests protected in various branches of tort law.” Id., at 259.
Applying those principles, we held in Carey that substantial damages should not be awarded where a plaintiff has been denied procedural due process but has made no further showing of compensable damage. We repeated, however, that “the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of one constitutional right are not necessarily appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of another.” Id., at 264-265. We referred to cases that support the award of substantial damages simply upon a showing that a plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of the right to vote, without requiring any further demonstration of damages. Id., at 264-265, n. 22.
Following Carey, the Courts of Appeals have recognized that invasions of constitutional rights sometimes cause injuries that cannot be redressed by a wooden application of common-law damages rules.* In Hobson v. Wilson, 237 U. S. App. D. C. 219, 275-281, 737 F. 2d 1, 57-63 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1084 (1985), which the Court cites, ante, at 309, and n. 13, plaintiffs claimed that defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation agents had invaded their First *315Amendment rights to assemble for peaceable political protest, to associate with others to engage in political expression, and to speak on public issues free of unreasonable government interference. The District Court found that the defendants had succeeded in diverting plaintiffs from, and impeding them in, their protest activities. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that that injury to a First Amendment-protected interest could itself constitute compensable injury wholly apart from any “emotional distress, humiliation and personal indignity, emotional pain, embarassment, fear, anxiety and anguish” suffered by plaintiffs. 237 U. S. App. D. C., at 280, 737 F. 2d, at 62 (footnotes omitted). The court warned, however, that that injury could be compensated with substantial damages only to the extent that it was “reasonably quantifiable”; damages should not be based on “the so-called inherent value of the rights violated.” Ibid.
I believe that the Hobson court correctly stated the law. When a plaintiff is deprived, for example, of the opportunity to engage in a demonstration to express his political views, “[i]t is facile to suggest that no damage is done.” Dellums v. Powell, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 275, 303, 566 F. 2d 167, 195 (1977). Loss of such an opportunity constitutes loss of First Amendment rights “ fin their most pristine and classic form.’ ” Ibid., quoting Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235 (1963). There is no reason why such an injury should not be compensable in damages. At the same time, however, the award must be proportional to the actual loss sustained.
The instructions given the jury in this case were improper because they did not require the jury to focus on the loss actually sustained by respondent. Rather, they invited the jury to base its award on speculation about “the importance of the right in our system of government” and “the role which this right has played in the history of our republic,” guided only by the admonition that “[i]n one sense, no monetary value we place on Constitutional rights can measure their im*316portance in our society or compensate a citizen adequately for their deprivation.” App. 96. These instructions invited the jury to speculate on matters wholly detached from the real injury occasioned respondent by the deprivation of the right. Further, the instructions might have led the jury to grant respondent damages based on the “abstract value” of the right to procedural due process — a course directly barred by our decision in Carey.
The Court therefore properly remands for a new trial on damages. I do not understand the Court, however, to hold that deprivations of constitutional rights can never themselves constitute compensable injuries. Such a rule would be inconsistent with the logic of Carey, and would defeat the purpose of § 1983 by denying compensation for genuine injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights.

See, e.g., Bell v. Little Axe Independent School District No. 70 of Cleveland Cty., 766 F. 2d 1391, 1408-1413 (CA10 1985); Hobson v. Wilson, 237 U. S. App. D. C. 219, 275-281, 737 F. 2d 1, 57-63 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1084 (1985); Kincaid v. Rusk, 670 F. 2d 737, 745-746 (CA7 1982); Mickens v. Winston, 462 F. Supp. 910, 913 (ED Va. 1978), summarily aff’d, 609 F. 2d 508 (CA4 1979).