## Facts

- The United States sued Tennessee under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) over unconstitutional conditions at the Arlington Developmental Center (ADC), a state-run residential facility for individuals with severe developmental disabilities.
- After trial, the court found serious and pervasive constitutional violations involving resident safety, medical care, restraint practices, and habilitation.
- The parties entered a comprehensive remedial consent decree on September 2, 1994, with numerous deadlines and oversight by a court-appointed monitor.
- By April 1995, the court found Tennessee had fully complied with only a small fraction of early deadlines under the remedial order.
- Due to continued failures, the court issued an emergency order requiring completion by August 9, 1995 of five key staffing/medical tasks: (1) retain a developmental physician, (2) ensure developmental-physician duties were performed, (3) retain a full-time psychiatrist, (4) contract with two developmental nurse consultants, and (5) hire 136 nurses.
- Tennessee did not meet the August 9 deadline on several provisions; the court found the State in civil contempt and imposed coercive sanctions, including monetary fines and requiring a state commissioner to spend every fourth weekend at ADC until compliance.
- Tennessee moved for a determination of its compliance with the emergency order and to purge the contempt finding.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee had complied with the emergency order provisions addressing the developmental physician and nursing staffing requirements.
2. Whether Tennessee demonstrated sufficient compliance to purge civil contempt and terminate or modify coercive sanctions.
3. What standard governs civil contempt and purging contempt in enforcing remedial decrees against public institutions.

## Decision

- The court found Tennessee remained in significant noncompliance with the emergency order, particularly regarding developmental physician coverage/duties and nursing staffing.
- The court held Tennessee had not met its burden to show compliance sufficient to purge the civil contempt finding.
- The court continued coercive civil-contempt sanctions (with any adjustments the court deemed appropriate) until Tennessee achieved the required level of compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Civil contempt in remedial-decree enforcement is coercive and remedial, not punitive; sanctions may continue until compliance is achieved.
- The contemnor bears the burden to show substantial compliance sufficient to purge contempt, or to prove inability to comply despite taking all reasonable steps.
- “Substantial compliance” turns on whether the substance of court-ordered obligations is met; nominal staffing or partial efforts do not satisfy orders requiring actual performance of specified duties and meaningful staffing levels.
- Recruiting difficulty does not excuse noncompliance absent proof that compliance was genuinely impossible notwithstanding sustained, reasonable efforts.
- In institutional litigation, courts may rely on monitor reports and may impose coercive measures, including fines and personal obligations on senior officials, when rationally related to compelling compliance.

## Conclusion

The court refused to purge Tennessee’s civil contempt because the State had not substantially complied with core emergency staffing and medical requirements at ADC, and it continued coercive sanctions to compel performance of the remedial obligations necessary to protect residents’ constitutional rights.


United States v. Tennessee, 925 F. Supp. 1292 (W.D. Tenn. 1995)