## Facts

- The United States sued the City of Yonkers and related entities, alleging intentional racial discrimination in housing and schools in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fair Housing Act.
- The district court found the City liable for intentionally segregating public housing and ordered affirmative remedial steps to disperse subsidized housing into predominantly white neighborhoods.
- After appellate affirmance of liability and remedy, the City and other parties negotiated a consent decree requiring, among other measures, enactment of an Affordable Housing Ordinance and implementation steps to site new subsidized housing.
- The Yonkers City Council voted to approve the consent decree, which was entered as a consent judgment.
- Facing political opposition, a majority of councilmembers later refused to pass implementing legislation needed to comply with the consent judgment.
- The district court ordered enactment by a specified date and warned of civil-contempt sanctions: escalating daily fines on the City and daily fines (and possible imprisonment) for individual councilmembers who failed to vote for the required ordinance.
- After the council defeated a resolution of intent to adopt the housing package, the district court held the City and four councilmembers in civil contempt.
- Sanctions included $500-per-day fines (and potential imprisonment) for each of the four councilmembers, and escalating daily fines against the City starting at $100 per day and doubling daily.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may impose civil-contempt sanctions on individual municipal legislators to coerce them to vote for legislation necessary to implement a consent judgment approved by the municipality.
2. Whether a municipality may be held in civil contempt and subjected to coercive escalating monetary sanctions for failing to comply with a consent judgment and related remedial orders.
3. What limits, if any, federalism, legislative immunity, constitutional protections, and equitable principles place on coercive contempt sanctions in this setting.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the civil-contempt adjudication against the City and approved coercive municipal fines, but modified the magnitude of the escalating schedule.
- The Second Circuit affirmed contempt sanctions against the four councilmembers and upheld coercive measures aimed at compelling their votes to implement the consent judgment.
- The Supreme Court later reversed as to the individual councilmembers, holding it was an abuse of discretion to impose contempt sanctions to compel their votes where less intrusive, effective City-directed sanctions were available; review of the City’s contempt sanctions was not granted.

## Legal Principles

- A consent judgment has the same binding force as other judicial orders; a municipality that approved and agreed to it may not refuse compliance because performance becomes politically unpopular.
- Federal courts have inherent authority to enforce lawful orders through civil contempt; civil-contempt sanctions may be coercive (to compel compliance) rather than punitive (to punish past conduct).
- Coercive monetary sanctions against a municipality may be used to secure compliance with desegregation and fair-housing remedies, including substantial escalating fines when necessary, subject to judicial discretion over amount and structure.
- In selecting contempt sanctions, courts must apply equitable limits, including using the least possible power adequate to achieve compliance and considering local governmental interests in managing municipal affairs consistent with federal law.
- Even where officials are bound as agents acting in concert with an enjoined municipality, compelling individual legislators’ votes through personal contempt sanctions may exceed equitable discretion when municipal sanctions are sufficient.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit approved strong civil-contempt enforcement of a municipal consent judgment, including substantial coercive fines against the City and sanctions directed at councilmembers to secure implementing votes, but the Supreme Court later limited this approach by barring personal contempt sanctions that compelled individual legislators’ votes when effective, less intrusive City-level measures were available.


United States v. City of Yonkers, 856 F.2d 444 (2d Cir. 1988)