solvency

Contempt damages shield individual freedoms

Karla Grossenbacher, "Implementing Structural Injunctions: Getting a Remedy When Local Officials Resist," 80 Georgetown Law Review 2227, 1992

Traditionally, when an individual's constitutional rights were violated, judges redressed the violations either by ordering government officials to pay damages to compensate for prior injuries or by subjecting the officials to preventative injunctions that prohibited specific future actions. The judge's emphasis was on prescribing government action (and compensating for government inaction) in an effort to shield individual freedoms from government intrusion.

Contempt fines against individuals are permissible

Grossenbacher

The Court held that the district court had abused its discretion when it imposed contempt sanctions on the individual councilmembers for refusing to vote in the way prescribed by the district court order. The Court stated that Judge Sand "should have proceeded with such contempt sanctions first against the city alone in order to secure compliance with the remedial order." Only if that approach failed to achieve compliance within a reasonable time should Judge Sand have considered contempt sanctions against the individual councilmembers. The Court in Spallone did not reach any of the constitutional issues presented, nor did it decide whether local legislators were entitled to immunity for their actions. The Court held only that Judge Sand had abused his discretion by imposing contempt fines on the individual officials and the city simultaneously. Thus, the Court left open the question whether contempt fines would be permissible against the individuals if the bankrupting fine was not successful in achieving compliance.