## Facts

- Dr. Bertold J. Pembaur operated a medical clinic in Cincinnati, Ohio, serving primarily welfare recipients.
- During a grand jury welfare-fraud investigation, subpoenas were issued for two clinic employees; after they failed to appear, an assistant county prosecutor obtained capiases for their detention.
- County deputy sheriffs went to the clinic to execute the capiases; the public reception area was open, but access to the interior required passing through a locked door by the receptionist’s window.
- The receptionist blocked the deputies, and Pembaur refused entry, asserted the officers lacked authority, and demanded they leave.
- Cincinnati police officers arrived and urged compliance; Pembaur continued to refuse.
- The deputies’ superior directed them to contact the County Prosecutor’s Office and follow its instructions; the assistant prosecutor consulted County Prosecutor Simon Leis, who directed officers to “go in and get” the employees.
- City police chopped down the door with an axe; deputies entered and searched but did not find the employees.
- Pembaur was acquitted of welfare-fraud charges but was convicted of obstructing police, and the conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Pembaur sued the City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the warrantless forced entry and search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; lower federal courts rejected county liability for lack of “official policy.”

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a single decision directing a challenged law-enforcement action.
2. Whether an official’s direction constitutes “official policy” when the official has final policymaking authority over the action ordered.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that municipal liability may rest on a single decision by municipal policymakers when the decisionmaker has final authority to establish policy with respect to the action ordered.
- The Court rejected the view that only longstanding customs or repeated practices can satisfy Monell’s “official policy” requirement.
- The Court indicated that determining who holds final policymaking authority is governed by state law; if such authority exists, the official’s deliberate choice may be attributable to the municipality.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is liable under § 1983 only for actions for which it is actually responsible—acts that it has officially sanctioned or ordered—rather than respondeat superior liability for employee misconduct.
- An “official policy” can be established by a single, deliberate decision when made by an official with final policymaking authority over the subject matter of the decision.
- Whether an official has final policymaking authority is a question of state law; once final authority is shown in the relevant area, the official’s choices are municipal policy for § 1983 purposes.
- The number of incidents is not determinative; the key inquiry is whether the challenged action was directed by a final policymaker and caused the alleged constitutional deprivation.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that a municipality may be held liable under § 1983 for a single order that results in a constitutional violation when the order is issued by an official who, under state law, has final authority to set policy for the specific law-enforcement action.


Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986)