Term: 2004
Docket: 04-278
Town Of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, Individually And As Next Friend Of Her Deceased Minor Children, Gonzales Et Al.
- Pro
04-278 CASTLE ROCK, CO V. GONZALES DECISION BELOW: 307 F3d 1258 CERT. GRANTED 11/1/2004 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, the Tenth Circuit's decision permitting a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to protect the holder of a partial restraining order from private violence, when the State itself provides no such remedy, so circumvents as to effectively repudiate this Court's holding in DeShaney rejecting a similar substantive due process claim? 2. If the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is read to permit, via its procedural aspects, the same substantive claims already rejected by this Court in DeShaney, what kind of process is required for police inaction with respect to a partial restraining order not to violate the constitution? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 01-1053
In the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales (2004), Jessica Gonzales sued the town and its police department for failing to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband who subsequently murdered their three children. She claimed that this failure violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Castle Rock, stating that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law and therefore did not constitute property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The court held that individuals do not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of court orders and local governments cannot be sued for monetary damages over such non-enforcement.
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, they argued that Jessica Gonzales did have a property interest in police enforcement of her restraining order against her estranged husband. They believed that Colorado law had created an entitlement to this service and thus it could not be arbitrarily denied without due process. The majority's interpretation was seen as ignoring the "mandatory language" used in the statute which required police action when there is probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such orders only benefit society at large rather than specifically protecting individuals like Ms. Gonzales. In their view, if a government chooses to establish mechanisms for individual safety (like protective orders), then people should be able to rely on them being enforced effectively.
