City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.

What This Case Is About

City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. is a Supreme Court decision establishing that municipalities cannot be required to pay punitive damages in § 1983 lawsuits. While cities and counties can be held liable for compensatory damages when their policies cause constitutional violations, they are immune from punitive damages designed to punish and deter.

The Facts

Fact Concerts, Inc. was licensed by the City of Newport, Rhode Island, to present certain musical concerts. When the city canceled the license, Fact Concerts and its promoter sued the city and individual city officials under § 1983, alleging that the cancellation amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights under color of state law.

At trial, the jury was instructed — without objection from the city — that it could award punitive damages against each defendant, including the city itself. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages against the individual officials and the city.

The city moved for a new trial, arguing for the first time that punitive damages could not be awarded against a municipality under § 1983. The district court rejected this argument, and the First Circuit affirmed on procedural grounds (the city’s failure to object at trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether municipalities are subject to punitive damages under § 1983.

What the Court Decided

Justice Blackmun, writing for a 6-3 majority, held that municipalities are immune from punitive damages under § 1983.

The Court’s analysis rested on two pillars:

Historical analysis: In 1871, when Congress enacted what is now § 1983, it was generally understood that municipalities could be sued for a wide range of tortious activity. However, this understanding did not extend to punitive damages. Common-law courts “consistently and expressly declined to award punitive damages against municipalities.” Nothing in the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 suggested Congress intended to change this rule.

Public policy analysis: The Court found that neither the retributive nor the deterrence objectives of punitive damages justified imposing them on municipalities:

• Retribution: Punishing a municipality effectively punishes the taxpayers, who are generally blameless. As the Court stated, “Neither reason nor justice suggests that such retribution should be visited upon the shoulders of blameless or unknowing taxpayers.”

• Deterrence: Punitive damages against a municipality do little to deter individual officials from unconstitutional conduct, since the damages come from the public fisc rather than the wrongdoer’s pocket. Compensatory damages already provide deterrence by incentivizing cities to properly train and supervise their employees.

The Court concluded that compensatory damages, along with punitive damages against individual officials, provide adequate remedies without the perverse effects of punishing innocent taxpayers.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

City of Newport is essential to understanding damages in § 1983 litigation:

• You cannot get punitive damages from a city or county. No matter how egregious the municipal conduct, punitive damages are available only against individual officials, not the municipality itself.

• Compensatory damages remain available. You can still recover full compensatory damages from a municipality for injuries caused by its unconstitutional policies or customs under Monell.

• Target individual officers for punitive damages. If you want punitive damages, you must pursue claims against individual officers in their personal capacity. Officers who act with malice or reckless indifference to constitutional rights may be subject to punitive damages.

Key Takeaway

If you are suing a city or county under § 1983, do not expect to recover punitive damages from the municipality — City of Newport bars that remedy. You can recover compensatory damages from the entity and punitive damages from individual officers in their personal capacity. Structure your case accordingly by naming both the municipality (for policy-based compensatory damages) and individual officers (for punitive damages).