Connick v. Thompson (2010)
- Docket
- 09-571
- Decided
- 2010-01-01
Summary
Question: Can a prosecutor's office be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors, on the theory that the office failed to adequately train its employees, when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training? Conclusion: No. A divided Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's office could not be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the court. In a dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the "what happened here, the Court's opinion obscures, was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer's misconduct." Instead, Ginsburg contended, evidence "established persistent, deliberately indifferent conduct for which the District Attorney's Office bears responsibility under §1983." Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion but filed a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, which responded to the dissent.