Court Opinion

ID: 9425345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:26.989462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.953522
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting in part.
I have expressed my doubts in Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 722 (dissenting opinion), that our decision in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, bars equitable relief against a municipality. In that case the legislative history * on which that construction of “person” as used in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 was based related to the fear of mulcting municipalities with damage awards for unauthorized acts of its police officers. Monroe v. Pape may be read as containing dicta that a remedy by way of declaratory relief or by injunction is barred by § 1983 as well as suits for damages. Yet I do not think we should decide that question without full briefing and considered argument.
*517I do, however, concur in a remand for reconsideration by the District Court in light of Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, and California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109.

See the Appendix to this opinion.