The U.S. Supreme Court case, Charlene Leatherman et al. v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al., 1992, revolved around the issue of whether a local government unit could be sued under federal law for alleged constitutional violations by its employees. The plaintiffs, Charlene Leatherman and others, filed a lawsuit against Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit (TCNICU) alleging that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated during an illegal search conducted by TCNICU officers in their homes without proper warrants or probable cause. However, the court ruled in favor of TCNICU stating that municipalities cannot be held liable under §1983 unless action pursuant to official municipal policy caused a constitutional tort - this is also known as Monell liability after the precedent-setting case Monell v Department of Social Services (1978). In other words, it was not enough to show that unlawful actions had been taken by municipality employees; there must have been an official policy or custom leading to those actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to not require heightened pleading standards in cases against municipalities was inconsistent with previous court rulings. He contended that this ruling would lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits because plaintiffs could make vague allegations without providing specific facts or evidence. Furthermore, he believed that it unfairly burdened defendants who would have to spend time and resources defending themselves against these baseless claims. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that it should be read as requiring more than just a "short and plain statement" in certain complex cases such as those involving municipal liability.