Exclusion of Unincorporated Associations Under Section 1983 – Lippoldt v. Dually; Operation Sa

Introduction

Lippoldt v. Dually; Operation Sa is a significant case adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on November 7, 2006. The plaintiffs, Donna Lippoldt, Operation Save America (OSA), and Philip Benham, challenged the City of Wichita's denial of their parade permits during the Summer of Mercy Renewal—a series of anti-abortion protests. Central to the litigation was the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically whether an unincorporated association like OSA qualifies as a "person" under the statute, thereby entitling it to bring a federal civil rights claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs (case number 04-3156) regarding the constitutionality of the parade permit denials. However, the court partially reversed the district court's decision in case number 04-3168 by ruling that OSA, being an unincorporated association, is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and thus cannot sue under this statute. Additionally, in case number 04-3322, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision on attorney fees, remanding the matter for further consideration. The judgment primarily established that unincorporated associations do not possess the legal standing to be plaintiffs under Section 1983, shaping future litigation concerning civil rights claims by similar organizations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed precedents related to the interpretation of "person" under Section 1983. Key cases include:

Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services (1978): Established that municipalities are "persons" under Section 1983.
WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE (1989): Held that a state itself is not a "person" under Section 1983.
Inyo County, Cal. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Colony (2003): Determined that a tribe is not a "person" under Section 1983.
United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co. (1922): Acknowledged that unincorporated associations lack the capacity to sue or be sued.

These cases collectively informed the court's analysis by illustrating the boundaries of who qualifies as a "person" capable of suing under Section 1983.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a statutory interpretation approach, focusing on the language and purpose of Section 1983 at the time of its enactment in 1871. It considered three primary factors from Monell:

Legislative history of Section 1983.
The general understanding of legal personality of unincorporated associations in 1871.
The Dictionary Act of 1871, which defined "person" to include corporations and municipalities but not unincorporated associations.

Upon examination, the court determined that Congress did not intend for unincorporated associations to be considered "persons" under Section 1983. Unlike corporations and municipalities, unincorporated associations lacked the capacity to sue or be sued under common law principles at the time of the statute's enactment. Furthermore, the Dictionary Act's language did not extend "person" to include unincorporated associations, reinforcing the statutory interpretation that excluded such entities.

Consequently, the court reversed the district court's finding that OSA was a "person" under Section 1983, emphasizing that analogies to other entities like corporations and tribes were insufficient to broaden the interpretation of "person" beyond what was historically and legally established.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for civil rights litigation involving unincorporated associations. By establishing that such associations do not qualify as "persons" under Section 1983, the court limits the scope of plaintiffs eligible to bring federal civil rights claims. Organizations similar to OSA must now ensure they are incorporated if they wish to utilize Section 1983 for litigation purposes. Additionally, this decision clarifies the legal landscape surrounding the capacity of various entities to seek redress under federal civil rights statutes, potentially influencing how future cases are framed and argued.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 1983 ("42 U.S.C. § 1983")

A federal statute that allows individuals to sue state government employees and others acting under state authority for civil rights violations.

Unincorporated Association

An organization of individuals without a formal legal structure (like a corporation) that grants it the capacity to sue or be sued.

Statutory Interpretation

The process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. In this case, the court examined the intent and language of Section 1983 as it was originally enacted.

Legislative Intent

The underlying purpose and objectives that Congress had in mind when drafting and enacting a statute.

Dictionary Act of 1871

A federal statute that provides definitions for terms used in legislation. It defined "person" to include corporations and municipalities.

Conclusion

The Lippoldt v. Dually; Operation Sa case serves as a pivotal reference point in the interpretation of federal civil rights statutes, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By decisively excluding unincorporated associations from being recognized as "persons" eligible to bring claims under Section 1983, the Tenth Circuit reinforced the necessity for organizations to adopt formal legal structures if they seek to engage in civil rights litigation. This judgment not only narrows the pathway for unincorporated groups but also underscores the importance of understanding statutory definitions and legislative intent in legal proceedings. Future litigants and legal practitioners must take heed of this precedent when considering the capacity of their organizations to pursue or respond to federal civil rights claims.