The U.S. Supreme Court case City of St. Louis v. James H. Praprotnik dealt with the issue of whether a city can be held liable under Section 1983 for constitutional violations resulting from decisions made by its employees, even if those decisions were not officially sanctioned by the city itself. The plaintiff, James Praprotnik, was an architect employed by the City of St Louis who claimed that his superiors had violated his constitutional rights through demotion and transfer due to political reasons which he argued amounted to constructive discharge (forcing him to resign). In a plurality decision, the court ruled in favor of the city stating that municipalities cannot be held responsible for actions taken by their employees unless it is proven that such actions were executed or condoned as per official municipal policy or custom established by lawmakers or officials with policymaking authority.

In the dissenting opinion for City of St. Louis v. James H. Praprotnik, Justice Brennan argued that a city can be held liable for constitutional violations committed by its officials if those officials possess final policymaking authority in the area where the violation occurred, regardless of whether they were following an established policy or not at the time of their actions. He disagreed with majority's view that only decisions made pursuant to official municipal policy could lead to municipal liability under Section 1983 and believed it was inconsistent with previous rulings on this issue. Furthermore, he contended that determining who has final policymaking authority should be based on state law rather than federal standards as suggested by majority opinion.