A remarkable number of canonical Section 1983 cases and many other less well-known civil rights cases involve extraordinary violence—brutality that cannot be described either as a bureaucratically rational, dispassionate expression of state power, or as marginally disproportionate in relation to the legally authorized level of force incident to the state’s monopoly on violence. They instead involve what the drafters of Section 1983 called “outrages”—extraordinary excess, a level of violence that is not merely disproportionate, but unbridled, not merely painful, but severe, degrading, abusive, extended, grotesque, gratuitous, orgiastic, carnivalesque, barbaric, and all too often fatal for Black people. What accounts for this cruelty (and the apparent pleasure taken in inflicting it) on the part of officers of the state? Why does it persist?
Reading across a range of interdisciplinary sources on extravagant violence, I argue that it involves the interaction of a number of elements: the fantasy of finding/generating legal certainty in the imposition of bodily suffering, the enactment of social and political domination (including controlling color and gender lines), the role of terror and physical abuse in relationships structured by dependency, and ambivalence in officers’ embodiment of sovereignty (officers who are both bound by and always potentially above the law). Extraordinary violence was also well known to the drafters of Section 1983. Unfortunately, the modern Court’s limitations on the Section 1983 cause of action and remedies betray the text of the statute and its unmistakable legislative purpose to provide redress for “outrages.”
INTRODUCTION
The exception explains the general and itself. . . . It brings everything to light more clearly than the general itself. After a while, one becomes disgusted with the endless talk about the general—there are exceptions. If they cannot be explained, then neither can the general be explained.
—Søren Kierkegaard
The landscape of Section 1983 precedent is littered with dead, mutilated bodies. It is saturated with blood. The children strewn across this landscape who are not dead themselves (shot in the back, even the face) have been beaten, forcibly sterilized, and abused in other ways. Private homes have been ransacked, burst asunder. The houses of detention that dominate the landscape reek of fecal matter, the stench of burning flesh, pestilence, and countless other indignities. Time itself is seized and obliterated for the wrongfully convicted who linger for decades in prison.
I refer here not to cases involving ordinary displays of the state’s monopoly on violence—the monopoly which political scientists and sociologists tell us must be held by the state and its law enforcement officers. Nor do I refer to the fact, insisted upon by Robert Cover, that while the exercise of judicial review may check the state’s monopoly on violence, it also rationalizes that violence. “Legal interpretation,” Cover trenchantly observes, “takes place in a field of pain and death.” Courts are implicated, inexorably, he insists, in the state’s monopoly on violence.
These are not the cases to which I refer. However painful and even fatal the ordinary operation of law can be, the cases to which I refer do not involve bureaucratically rational, efficient, dispassionate expressions of state power. Nor are they cases in which brutality is marginally disproportionate in relation to the legally authorized level of force incident to the state’s monopoly on violence—cases, that is, in which rational, efficient, dispassionate expressions of state power happen to exceed the legal threshold of “excessive force” or “cruel and unusual punishment” or “discriminatory purpose.” These cases, tragic as they are, are instances of ordinary legal error, lying at the “sometimes ‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.’ ”
The class of cases to which I refer involve what the drafters of Section 1983 called “outrages”—extraordinary excess. Violence that is not merely disproportionate, but unbridled, not merely painful, but severe, degrading, abusive, extended, grotesque, gratuitous, orgiastic, carnivalesque, barbaric, and all too often fatal. Less commonly observed is the fact that this form of violence is also very often deeply intimate, even erotic in the sense in which George Battaille understood erotic excess (a “transgression of borders [that] sets us in intimacy with the other”), though unlike the loving transgressions he describes, the “sovereignty” exercised in these cases is not in the service of “friendship, truth, compassion, and the welcoming of differences.” Difference is instead annihilated, and suffering is inflicted proximately, often by hand, far from conventional bureaucratic forms of action at a distance. Extraordinary excess is not merely intimate, but in some cases sadistic—perpetrated, that is, by officers who appear to take pleasure in the suffering they inflict. And while this violence can be brazenly public, a spectacle, it is very often privately inflicted, sometimes withheld from public scrutiny by conspiracies of silence and deceit.
What explains this form of state violence in Section 1983 cases, many of which are landmarks in the development of the law and procedure of civil rights enforcement? If James Monroe must be arrested on false suspicion of murder, why must his wife be made to stand naked in the living room during the arrest, his six children beaten? If Adolph Lyons has not perfectly complied with an officer’s request to raise his hands during a traffic stop, if he complains after his hands are slammed back to his head, why must he be placed in a chokehold until he passes out, “spitting up blood and dirt,” having “urinated and defecated” on himself when he regains consciousness? If Larry Hope must be disciplined for falling asleep and arriving late to forced labor on a chain gang in a prison, why must he be handcuffed to a hitching post shirtless in the sun for seven hours? Why must he be deprived of bathroom breaks? And why would a corrections officer carry water out to the hitching post only to taunt Mr. Hope by giving it to a prison dog and then spilling it on the ground before Mr. Hope in the sweltering heat? If Keith Hudson legally deserved punishment for getting into an altercation with prison guards, why, after he’d been restrained in handcuffs and shackles, was he repeatedly punched in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while a guard held him down? Why did the supervisor on duty not only watch the beating, but tell the officers involved with acidic irony “not to have too much fun”? If Javid Iqbal must be detained on immigration charges in a maximum security facility on completely false suspicion of connections to the September 11th attacks, why did the officers kick him “ ‘in the stomach, punch[] him in the face, and drag[] him across’ his cell without justification”? Why must he be subjected to “serial strip and body-cavity searches when he posed no safety risk to himself or others”? Why must he be denied the right to pray and subjected to religious slurs?
Why are there so many replications of these cases? And why are these outrages so often color-coded?
In some of the canonical cases, the Supreme Court has upheld a right to relief for the underlying constitutional violations. The experience of Mr. Monroe and his family underlies the Court’s landmark 1961 decision reviving Section 1983 as a federal cause of action from its Jim Crow dormancy. The Court upheld the use of Section 1983 for constitutional violations by state actors even when the plaintiff would presumably have a cause of action under state common law for at least some of the relevant harm. Larry Hope’s suffering underlies the Court’s determination that, for purposes of overcoming the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, some conduct is so obviously unlawful that there need not be a near-exact precedent on the books alerting the officer to this fact. Any reasonable officer would know the conduct was unlawful.
In other cases, however, the Court has denied relief and denied even the right to seek federal judicial review. These are the circumstances in Lyons, the 1983 case requiring that standing be separately established for injunctive relief (even when the plaintiff has standing for money damages) and requiring that the plaintiff show substantial risk of recurrence of harm. The holding is part of the reason why deadly police chokeholds, used in the absence of proportionate physical threat to officers, remain so prevalent. In the absence of standing to seek an injunction to ensure that police-use-of-force policies comply with the Fourth Amendment, use-of-force policies are difficult to challenge. In Iqbal, the Court dismissed the complaint as implausible under Rule 12(b)(6). Even after Inspector General reports confirmed Iqbal’s assertions that high level government officials were well aware of the conditions in the prison and did nothing about it, the Court dismissed suits by similarly mistreated detainees on the ground that there is no Bivens cause of action (the federal officer analogue to Section 1983) for such harm, and that there was no cognizable cause of action for a Section 1985 conspiracy.
But put to one side, for the moment, whether legal redress is or ought to be available for such conduct. And put to one side as well the simmering debate on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity when money damages are sought in civil rights cases, the near universal indemnification of officers who are ultimately held liable, and the uncertain fate of the Bivens cause of action for constitutional torts committed by federal officers. Put aside what it means to act “under color” of law for the purposes of Section 1983 liability and what must be shown to obtain an injunction to reform police departments and prisons. Suspend all of these vitally important, hotly contested doctrinal questions. Pause to take stock of the extraordinary, dehumanizing level of violence inflicted at the hand of the sovereign, the repetition compulsion, the fetishization of excess. Consider how and why Trent Taylor was forced to spend four days in a cell
covered, nearly floor to ceiling, “ ‘in massive amounts’ of feces”: all over the floor, the ceiling, the window, the walls, and even “packed inside the water faucet.” Fearing that his food and water would be contaminated, Taylor did not eat or drink for nearly four days. Correctional officers then moved Taylor to a second, frigidly cold cell, which was equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of bodily wastes. . . . Because the cell lacked a bunk, and because Taylor was confined without clothing, he was left to sleep naked in sewage.
What explains this level of mistreatment? Not just the wretched, “shockingly unsanitary” conditions (conditions, note, in which the corrections officers themselves must work as they move and supervise prisoners), but the taunting by the officer who, upon placing Taylor in the first cell, informed him that he was “going to have a long weekend,” and another officer who, upon placing Taylor in the second cell, said he “hoped Taylor would f***ing freeze.”
What accounts for this humiliation and cruelty (and the apparent pleasure taken in inflicting it) on the part of officers of the state?
No meaningful conversation about jurisdiction, appropriate forms of action, or remedies can begin without grappling with the nature and sources of these constitutional violations and the mutual dehumanization they cause. Even if there are necessary tragedies attendant to the state’s monopoly on violence, what explains this level of violent excess, depravity, and depredation?
The very first thing to say is that the harm cannot be understood if it is not accurately described, if the depth of the violence involved is diminished, obscured, or antiseptically elided. The majority opinion in Lyons is an exercise in elision, rendering Mr. Lyons’ request for injunctive relief to prevent another such incident irrational, even paranoid, rather than a reasonable response to policies and practices regarding use of force that disproportionately affect Black drivers in Los Angeles. The chokehold, the majority concedes, “caus[ed] damage to his larynx” and “render[ed] him unconscious,” and the majority mentions the evidence of more than a dozen deaths resulting from the use of chokeholds. But it does so only in passing in a paragraph concerning whether the case was mooted by alterations in the city’s policies.
It is instead in Justice Marshall’s dissent that one learns that when Lyons “regained consciousness, he was lying face down on the ground, choking, gasping for air, and spitting up blood and dirt,” and that he had “urinated and defecated” on himself as a result of the chokehold. We learn from Justice Marshall that Lyons was not charged with any crime (let alone a crime such as resisting arrest that might suggest the chokehold was a proportionate response). He was simply “issued a traffic citation [for a burnt out taillight] and released.” And it is the dissent which cites record evidence that Black people made up seventy-five percent of deaths from chokeholds in a city in which they were just nine percent of the population. The majority simply ignored the racial elements of the case, as well as the statistical evidence showing that three-fourths of all police/citizen “altercations” involved use of a chokehold—data suggestive of a policy or practice of resorting to deadly force when officers are met with simple dissent. This colorblindness obscures record evidence of racially discriminatory policing.
Similarly, in Monroe, it is only from Justice Frankfurter’s dissent that we learn that Mr. Monroe had six children, all of whom were rousted along with his wife, that Mr. Monroe was struck several times by Detective Pape “with his flashlight, calling him [n-word] and ‘black boy,’ [and] . . . that other officers hit and kicked several of the children and pushed them to the floor.” Here too, the element of race and its conjunction with unprovoked violence would be all but invisible absent the dissent’s more faithful recitation of the allegations of the complaint. So too the fact and nature of the violence visited upon Mr. Monroe’s children.
Nor can the nature or source of the harm be understood if excesses are dismissed as the unfortunate result of individual rogue officers. To be sure, not every constitutional violation springs from the orders of supervisors or from official policy, practice, or custom, and comparatively few in number involve extraordinary excess. Neither is it the case, however, that every violation springs from circumstantial contingencies, isolated error, or the pathological deviance of individual officers. Whether or not one believes that supervisors and government agencies should be held legally accountable for the conduct of their officers (either on a respondeat superior theory or some more exacting standard such as the one developed from Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services and its progeny), bad apples cannot explain all cases. Indeed, the theory is contradicted by cases such as Taylor and Iqbal in which supervisors are plainly involved, as well as a vast body of research in social psychology and organizational behavior concerning institutional failure and crimes of wrongful obedience. Ordinary people of good will, the research shows, are capable of inflicting pain and suffering on others, including extraordinary levels of pain and suffering, when working in settings where harmful conduct is expected, rationalized, or ignored.
In the following pages I examine “outrages” in civil rights cases and the nature of such extraordinary excess. The first level of work is mainly negative, identifying in Part I what this excess is unlike—how distinctive it is even according to social and political theories that are explicitly concerned with the ways in which people performing seemingly ordinary bureaucratic tasks contribute to monstrous deeds and systems of subordination. Part II turns to theories that focus on direct participation in extraordinary, dehumanizing excess and subordination to explore what kind of legal officer is capable of inflicting such severe suffering, under what circumstances, what purposes and forms of power might be served, and what kind of legal subject is produced by inflicting suffering in this way. I concentrate on Franz Kafka’s short story The Penal Colony, which imagines an extravagantly painful form of capital punishment, Patricia Williams’s essay on the irrational fears that animate racial prejudice and police brutality, and studies on the nature of “intimate partner” violence.
Reading across these interdisciplinary sources on extravagant violence I suggest that outrages involve the interaction of a number of elements: the fantasy of finding/generating legal certainty in the imposition of bodily suffering, the enactment of social and political domination (including controlling color and gender lines), the role of terror and physical abuse in relationships defined by dependency, and ambivalence in officers’ embodiment of sovereignty (libidinally charged oscillation between self-restraint and extravagant excess on the part of officers of the state who are themselves both bound by and always potentially above the law). In the final section, Part III, I turn from these theories of extraordinary violence to civil rights enforcement doctrine. I argue that extraordinary, racialized violence resulting from corruption of office was well known to the drafters of Section 1983, that the statute was specifically designed to remedy what the Reconstruction-era drafters called “outrages,” and that the modern Court’s use of federalism principles to limit the Section 1983 cause of action and remedies directly contradicts the text of the statute and this unmistakable legislative purpose.
The literature on the drafting of Section 1983 is extensive, but it concentrates mainly on whether the language “under color” of law was designed to restrict the cause of action to circumstances in which the federal right-holder would not have a parallel claim under state law. This approach is understandable in light of Justice Frankfurter’s emphasis on this reading of the statute in his dissenting opinion in Monroe v. Pape and the debate his opinion fueled. What has not received adequate attention beyond conventional references to the role of Klan violence in the legislation of Section 1983 is the specific connection between the persistence of “outrages,” government officer complicity in such violence, and the failure of state courts and law enforcement to address the corruption of state legal systems arising from resistance to Reconstruction.
Both Section 1983 scholarship and empirical analyses of officer brutality also tend to lump modern cases involving extraordinary violence together with all cases on excessive force and forms of prison violence that lack a legitimate penological purpose. The effect is to assimilate outrages to a broader category of state violence. However instructive this is regarding the overall problem of modern police/carceral violence, it tends to obscure the distinctive phenomenon of outrages, the unique harm they cause, and their role in prompting Congress to establish Section 1983 in the first place.
I. FALSE STARTS IN THEORIZING EXTRAORDINARY VIOLENCE
Modern social and political thought has been preoccupied with the irrational and dehumanizing effects of institutionalized violence. But it is notable that among the most authoritative accounts—Arendt’s theory of the banality of evil, Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power, and Kafka’s theory of perishing “before the law”—outrages are largely irrelevant.
A. The “Banality of Evil”
Section 1983 cases involving extraordinary violence do not seem to result from what Arendt famously described as the “banality of evil,” a theory that has been used as a framework for understanding how relatively ordinary people become instruments in the perpetration of monstrous deeds. Observing the trial of Adolph Eichmann for his role in organizing the transportation of Jewish people and others to Nazi death camps, Arendt was struck by the extent to which Eichmann was neither “perverted” nor “sadistic” but rather terrifyingly “normal.” He apparently acted mainly to advance his bureaucratic position.
The deeds were monstrous, but the doer—at least the very effective one now on trial—was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous. . . . Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everyone could see that this man was not a ‘monster,’ but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown.
Arendt uses the term “clown” because Eichmann was unable to avoid self-contradiction, lying, and cliché in matters of morality. His “inability to speak,” Arendt emphasizes, “was closely connected with an inability to think; that is, to think from the standpoint of somebody else.” Eichmann knew (“of course”) that “he had played a role in the extermination of the Jews,” that without performing this bureaucratic function Jewish people “would not have been delivered to the butcher.” But he scoffed at the idea that this established his personal culpability (“What is there to admit?” he asked when pressed on the matter).
Chillingly, he “remembered the turning points in his own career” more accurately than “the turning points in the story of Jewish extermination, or, as a matter of fact, [] the turning points in history.” The ideological machinery of fascism, Arendt contends, efficiently mobilized the petty self-serving idealism of bureaucrats like Eichmann, drawing them into the enthusiastic erection and maintenance of the machinery of death. Inability “to think” and dislocation of moral responsibility in the very seat of identity combined to produce a monstrous and yet banal form of evil.
Eichmann’s role in the machinery of death of the Holocaust was, however abhorrent, principally administrative in nature—distant from the scenes of murder. He orchestrated a process of stripping Jews of their property and rights to prepare them for expulsion from their communities to death camps. Arendt’s analysis reminds us that acts of violence have bureaucratic predicates in which many people are complicit, but the distinction between the acts and their bureaucratic predicates matters to a full understanding of extraordinary violence. Many people who are capable of performing roles at a distance from violence are utterly incapable of the violence itself. Eichmann, for example, testified that if he was shown “a gaping wound, I can’t possibly look at it. I am that type of person.” Indeed, this is one of the most important insights of Arendt’s theory of the banality of evil—that people who recoil from direct acts of violence are instrumental to the administrative architecture which ultimately produces and sustains it. In the Section 1983 cases involving extraordinary violence, by contrast, the named officers are not acting at a distance—their hands are saturated with blood. Even when high level officers are also named, as in Iqbal and Abassi, the core allegation is that the policies and practices immediately responsible for the harm (not intermediate bureaucratic steps) flow from the ink of their pens and associated decisions.
B. “Disciplinary Power” and the “Spectacle of the Scaffold”
The exceptional violence in Section 1983 cases does not flow from “disciplinary power” either. In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault describes ways in which surveillance, ranking, and the arrangement of space in modern carceral institutions produces efficient compliance, or “docility”:
[T]he systems of punishment are . . . situated in a certain “political economy” of the body: even if they do not make use of violent or bloody punishment, even when they use “lenient” methods involving confinement or correction, it is always the body that is at issue—the body and its forces, their utility and their docility, their distribution and their submission.
A panopticon, the famous prison design of Jeremy Bentham from which Foucault theorizes, produces docility among inmates mainly by creating uncertainty about whether and when one is being surveilled. Indeed, uncertainty about surveillance prompts inmates to monitor themselves, obviating the need for actual force to be deployed by prison guards. This was its supposedly modern genius as compared to the use of dungeons, torture, and spectacles of death on the scaffold. It achieves this by “induc[ing] in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power,” such that
the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.
Foucault connects the panopticon and other systems oriented toward the production of docility (in schools, factories, hospitals, military barracks) to “progressive forms of training,” measurement, ranking, and other “techniques for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities” in a “disciplinary society.” Disciplinary power thus develops alongside mass society and the industrial revolution to ensure social order and efficient labor. In “every society, the body was in the grip of very strict powers, which imposed on it constraints, prohibitions[,] or obligations.”
In all of these accounts, what makes disciplinary power distinctive is precisely the absence or minimal role of violence, its “subtle coercion” through the “efficiency of movements[,] . . . an uninterrupted, constant coercion, supervising the processes of activity,” which the subject eventually internalizes. The extraordinary violence in Section 1983 cases is quite different. It involves direct, physical, unmediated infliction of pain. It is therefore closer to what Foucault calls “sovereign power.” Throughout Discipline and Punish and in other works Foucault is careful to distinguish disciplinary and sovereign power. Sovereign power is what we conventionally associate with the state’s monopoly on violence—state action in the standard sense of armed officers acting in an official capacity. It is comparatively inefficient and discontinuous, requiring “sumptuous expenditure[s],” relative to the operation of disciplinary power.
Precisely because it is so inefficient, Foucault argues that sovereign power historically relied on spectacles of excess to produce compliance. These spectacles were designed to display the “unlimited power of the sovereign,” “an emphatic affirmation of . . . its intrinsic superiority . . . not simply that of right, but . . . the physical strength of the sovereign bearing down upon” deviant subjects to “revenge[] its authority.” As David Owens has shown, recorded and publicly disseminated images of anti-Black police violence fit the “spectacle of the scaffold” which Foucault associates with early modern European expressions of sovereign power. There is, however, no public scaffold when extraordinary violence is inflicted behind prison walls and in unrecorded or unpublished encounters with police officers, a problem to which I return in Part II.
C. Being “Before the Law”
In Franz Kafka’s famous parable, Before the Law, the protagonist is denied access to law by a low-ranking but “mighty” gatekeeper who says that he is but one of many gatekeepers, “each one mightier than the one before.” The gatekeeper shares that “[e]ven the sight of the third is more than I can bear,” so terrible are his powers. The gatekeeper is thus an example of sovereign power, a power apparently so awesome in its capacity for violence that no one dares resist it. Significantly, for our purposes, however, the gatekeeper’s capacity for violence is so overwhelming that it need not be exercised upon the body. The gatekeeper also informs the protagonist that the gate is for him alone, not others, suggesting that the gate is not public. The protagonist decides to wait for permission and the gatekeeper “gives him a stool and allows him to sit down beside the door.” But the wait is unending, and ultimately fatal. The gatekeeper stands impassively as the protagonist gradually withers “before the law” and dies. In the meantime, the gatekeeper takes all the protagonist’s money, “so that you don’t think there’s something you’ve omitted to do.”
There are many readings of the parable as a critique of the terrible, dehumanizing force of law, but the protagonist’s suffering, albeit unto death, is not caused by any act of violence on the part of the gatekeeper. His suffering is shaped instead by the possibility of violence, implied in the gatekeeper’s admonition about his awesome power and the even greater powers of other gatekeepers beyond the portal before which he stands. The moral outrage the story evokes lies in the gatekeeper’s startling indifference. It is suggestive of the thoughtless, cold, bureaucratic unseating of empathy with which Arendt is concerned, but not the extravagant infliction of physical suffering we see in Section 1983 cases.
II. THE BODY AND BEING ABOVE THE LAW
If targets of extraordinary violence are not “before the law,” subjected to disciplinary power, or victims of the “banality of evil” and its action at a distance, what explains their victimization?
A. In the Penal Colony
Another famous story by Franz Kafka takes us closer to understanding the phenomenon. In the Penal Colony describes an “apparatus” created by a former colonial commandant to suppress disorder in the colony. The apparatus is a machine that “carr[ies] out . . . the sentence” by inscribing its text on the body of the condemned person with needles. The condemned person is strapped to a “bed” above which hangs a “harrow”—a metal frame holding many needles. The machine, called the “engraver,” moves the bed and the harrow, “vibrat[ing] both sideways and up and down, in tiny, very rapid movements” each of which is “very carefully calibrated,” inscribing the sentence in thrusts and cuts of gradually increasing depth. During the process, which takes twelve hours, the condemned person slowly experiences the sentence “on his body” as the thrusts and cuts deepen until he bleeds to death. The sentence is “put to him physically.”
Extraordinary excess is a defining feature of every phase of this punishment. The legal “process” that leads to punishment is itself excessively deferential to officer discretion. A condemned person receives no trial, no defense, and is not informed of the sentence before it is inscribed on their body. Guilt is decided by those who control the apparatus, and because there is no opportunity to present a defense, guilt “is always beyond doubt.” A foreign observer is informed that in the process of inscription there are elaborate embellishments by the needles upon the body of the condemned: “many[,] many ornaments surround[ing] the script proper.” The apparatus not only writes the punishment with increasingly deep incisions in the body of the condemned, it uses “the rest of the body” to surround the “actual text” with extravagant “decoration.” The pain is equally extravagant. About halfway through the execution of the sentence, the traveler is told, the pain is so excruciating that the condemned person eventually stops screaming and falls silent as he “begins to decipher the script . . . with his wounds.” The officer who operates the apparatus views this as the climactic moment when justice is realized, describing it as a “transfiguration” in which even “[t]he very dimmest of them begins to understand.” Their faces take on a look “that might seduce one to take their place” in the apparatus, so transcendent is the truth they experience.
In many ways, In the Penal Colony represents the apotheosis of the spectacle of the scaffold. The officer, overcome with nostalgia, reports that during the reign of the former commandant, executions were public events with massive public attendance (“the whole valley was packed . . . everyone came to spectate . . . they all knew: justice is being enacted”) and the apparatus not only inscribed the sentence, its needles dripped with a painful, corrosive acid:
It was impossible to find room for all those who wanted to view the proceedings from close . . . . How we watched the transfiguration in the tormented faces [of the condemned], how we held our cheeks in the glow of this arduously achieved and already passing justice! I tell you, comrade, those were times!”
This is a genuine public spectacle, designed to demonstrate the awesome power of sovereignty, to secure compliance with law by making the administration of justice not only summary (no trial, no defense, no notice of the sentence) but immediate (operating directly upon the body of the condemned, enacting the sentence upon the body using the exquisitely painful machinery of the apparatus), absolute (every sentence is a death sentence), and yet also temporally and substantively extended (extending beyond the “actual text” of the sentence to lavish “decorative” embellishments, and beyond mere execution to excruciatingly slow torture ending in death), all resting on the sadistic, metaphysically sublime premise that the true nature of justice appears and is “understood” in and through the body during the inscription.
Kafka implies that the apparatus is not, in fact, essential to maintain order in the colony even though the officer claims that under the former commandant who built it, administration of the entire colony was “seamlessly efficient.” We learn early in the story that the new commandant, much to the chagrin of the officer, regards the apparatus as barbaric and unnecessary, resists expenditure for its upkeep, has the support of the people, and has invited the traveler to observe the execution in order to use the traveler’s views to ban its use permanently. Indeed, much of the dramatic tension in the story rests not just on the design and use of the apparatus for what becomes its final execution, but on whether and how the traveler will announce his moral opposition to it to the new commandant (the traveler is, we gradually learn, steadfastly “opposed” to the entire process: “[t]he injustice of the procedure and the inhumanity of the execution were incontestable”). When the officer fails to persuade the traveler of the value of the apparatus, the officer spares the condemned man and instead inserts himself into the apparatus. The apparatus impales him almost immediately because it has not been possible to properly maintain it and he dies within minutes, leaving “no trace” that he has experienced the “promised transfiguration.”
The violence of the apparatus is of course in important ways quite different from extraordinary violence in Section 1983 cases. It is, to begin with, imaginary, and also a relic of public executions, whereas the violence in Section 1983 cases is all too real, and there is often no audience. The apparatus also mediates the relationship between the body of the condemned and the officer. The officer, at one point, has to probe deep into the apparatus to attempt a repair, but it is neither a cyborg nor simply an instrument of torture wielded by the officer. Once the instructions of the “sentence” are inserted into the apparatus and the condemned person is strapped onto the bed, the machine makes the inscription automatically. Finally, many Section 1983 cases involve deaths at the hands of officers of the state, but the cases generally do not involve executions following judgments imposing capital punishment as a sentence. Instead, when deadly force is used, officers are usually in the process of mundane traffic stops, executing warrants and making arrests, or engaged in prison administration away from death row. And of course, many Section 1983 cases involving extraordinary violence and suffering do not result in death.
The point of connection between the story and Section 1983 cases lies instead in its account of the officer’s attachment to the apparatus as an instrument of excess (even to private scenes of excess after public attendance has been banned), and to the seductive power of the summary administration of justice. The officer who maintains the apparatus doesn’t just appreciate it; he is obsessively attached to it. By the time the traveler comes to see it, the officer is “its sole defender.” While he barely notices the condemned man, the officer is distraught that the new commandant has withheld funds for maintenance of the apparatus, he laments that there are no longer proper replacement parts, and he is particularly distressed that a more humane execution procedure is being developed. He refers to the diagrams that typeset the apparatus as “the most precious things I have.” He also desperately seeks to draw the traveler into a conspiracy to undermine the new commandant and his plan to decommission the apparatus. The completeness of his obsession with the machine is revealed by his fatal devotion to it—once he realizes that it will no longer be used and that his efforts to persuade the traveler of its value are in vain, the officer makes his own execution the machine’s last, a process that results in the machine falling apart. His devotion is, one might say, not merely complete but fatally excessive.
Underneath devotion to the apparatus is attachment to the power to inflict bodily pain in the administration of justice—an attachment grounded in the idea that infliction of bodily pain serves as a lexical index of justice, that pain is an instrument of justice, the way to see justice done. This idea animates the officer’s sadism and the erotic charge traveling with the physical imposition of legal judgment—literally, the inscription of sovereign power upon the body of the subject. Similar attachments appear to motivate the officers in Section 1983 cases who take pleasure in the suffering they inflict (e.g., the officer who hoped Taylor would “f***ing freeze” in the “frigidly cold cell . . . equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of bodily wastes”), as well as chokehold cases like Lyons in which the body of the officer is (must be) personally, immediately, and intimately engaged with the exercise of sovereign power, inscribing it upon the body of the supposedly resistant subject.
Attachment is not just to embodying the instrument of sovereign power, but to legal certainty—inscribing the law on the subject’s body. A legal order that seeks perfect compliance (along with the erotic charge of potentially ‘complete’ repression) is a form of excess in relation to human fallibility. In Kafka’s story, there is a cathartic element in the dyadic economy of a suffering/redeemed/dead “perpetrator” and suffering/relieved victims and bystanders. Indeterminacy, the terror of it, is executed, purged from the community, along with the condemned. Thus, even as other more restrained forms of policing and punishment emerge in the penal colony, the imagined moral clarity and instrumental utility of the apparatus, and the attendant desire to preserve it and all the accoutrement of its scaffolding, to speak its language of certainty, to inscribe it automatically upon the bodies of deviant subjects, remains. And this remainder—the longing it prompts for revival of such a system—haunts new, ostensibly more humane and fallible regimes. This remainder is also latent in the “thin blue line” discourse of law and order insofar as it rationalizes police and carceral violence—what “law and order” promises (the absence it mobilizes politically and in the psyche) is the certainty of determinate exercises of sovereign power and the compliance such certainty ostensibly guarantees. Embellished, gratuitous, and grotesque bodily infliction of pain reflects this longing for compliance and legal certainty. Bodies must be fixed, transfixed, in compliant recognition of sovereign power.
The officer in the story is so committed to this work that he appears to have lost all sense of connection to the dignity and humanity of the subjects of the colony he participates in governing, not least of which the condemned man. His almost exclusive concern is with maintaining and caring for the apparatus. Indeed, he exhibits paranoia about the new commandant’s plans and is unable to cope with a future in which those plans will unfold. Even at lower levels of intensity, sociologies of policing suggest that perspective and judgment are warped when officers succumb to an embattled, binary, “blue line” mindset in which the people one serves become a foreign, abstract out-group. Ordinary emotional responses become grotesquely inverted—instead of revulsion, pleasure is taken in inflicting pain; instead of empathy and a sense of duty toward subjects, there is antipathy or brutally cold indifference; instead of care, there is the belief that suffering is not just deserved but in the best interests of the subject’s legal “transfiguration.”
The officer’s obsession in Kafka’s story is not just nostalgically motivated, it is an expression of “imperialist nostalgia”—seething resentment at the new regime and its lenience is expressed in inverted form as intimate attachment to the apparatus believed to be central to the authority of the ancien regime over the colony. John Zilcosky admonishes that it is a mistake to separate the erotic element of the apparatus’s sadistic excess from its value as an instrument of colonial oppression. “The problem with [some] postcolonial readings” of In the Penal Colony, he insists, “is that they fail to address the promise of sado-masochistic pleasure that is so central to the story’s effect. Just as the earlier psychoanalytical interpretations repressed politics, these political readings repress desire.” The officer’s obsessive attachment (being willing indeed, not just to die for the apparatus, but with it, in it) fuses the erotic and politically instrumental in the form of a death wish executed by fatal penetration (as the apparatus malfunctions, one of the needles plunges through the officer’s skull). Obsessive attachment is in this way represented as an erotically charged and (at least until the officer’s death) a politically useful byproduct of a system that scaffolded spectacles of sadistic excess and permitted officers to impose summary justice.
In any system in which extravagant sovereign power has been replaced with a new regime of limits, especially externally imposed limits, resentment can run deep. In the American context, one might, for instance, read resistance to Reconstruction enforcement in the nineteenth century and resistance to the Warren Court’s revival of Section 1983 along these lines—new, decidedly unwelcome federal (and federal judicial) interventions into matters of traditional state and local executive branch concern in the administration of criminal justice.
B. “Spirit-Murder”
Kafka leaves the role of racial subordination in spectacular violence implied in In the Penal Colony. Early on in the story the traveler remarks that the officer’s uniform is “much too heavy for the tropics.” The officer replies that they wear them nonetheless because they “signify home, and we don’t want to lose touch with home.” In this sentence, in another about the fact that both the traveler and officer speak French while the condemned man and attending soldier do not, and in the officer’s reference to the traveler’s moralistic “European perspective” on capital punishment, a geography of colonial and racial exploitation is made clear.
In one of her most famous essays on law and policing in America, Patricia Williams is explicit, directly addressing the role of extraordinary violence in racial subordination. She examines the failed criminal prosecution of a white police officer who shot and killed a sixty-seven-year-old, arthritic, Black woman in her Bronx apartment. The officers were there to evict Eleanor Bumpurs and she resisted. The writ of possession authorizing the eviction was issued via a default judgment, which means that Mrs. Bumpurs never received a hearing in court before the officers showed up to evict her. Indeed, it appears that she was not properly notified of the case and there were “serious doubt[s]” about the validity of the landlord’s grounds for eviction. This summary process without notice may have played a role in her confusion and resistance.
According to the Police Commissioner, six officers were in the apartment, all armed, two wielding large plastic shields, another a “restraining hook.” Mrs. Bumpurs, wielding a knife “bent” in the confrontation by one of the plastic shields, escaped from the hook and was shot by the officer farthest from her with a shotgun. The blast “removed half of her hand, so that, according to the Bronx District Attorney’s Office, ‘it was anatomically impossible for her to hold the knife.’ ” The officer nevertheless “pumped his gun and shot again,” this time killing her.
She asks what “animus . . . inspired such fear, and such impatient contempt in a police officer that the presence of six other heavily armed men could not allay”:
Why was the sight of a knife-wielding woman so fearfully offensive to a shotgun-wielding policeman that he felt that blowing her to pieces was the only recourse, the only way to preserve his physical integrity? What offensive spirit of his past experience raised her presence to the level of a physical menace beyond real dimensions? What spirit of prejudgment and of prejudice provided him with such a powerful hallucinogen?
The essay goes on to explore the ways in which racism authorizes not just violence, but extraordinarily excessive anti-Black violence. She considers examples in which both white police officers and white citizens were exonerated in the press and in court for such violence. Echoing Arendt’s critique of Eichmann’s inability to think and the penal colony officer’s perverse certainty that torture produces transfiguration, Williams ultimately concludes that white supremacy creates distorted mental states (“formalized distortions of thought” that “produce[] social structures centered around fear and hate”) in which “in the minds of whites[,] . . . blacks become large, threatening, powerful, ubiquitous, and supernatural.” The Black body must not only be subdued, its far larger spectral presence which operates “beyond real dimensions” must be annihilated.
The connection between extravagant violence and “embellished fear” in this process of annihilation comes into sharpest relief when Williams recites “a news story from [her] fragmentary grammar school recollections of the 1960’s,” according to which
a white man acting out of racial motives killed a black man who was working for some civil rights organization or cause. The man was stabbed thirty-nine times, a number which prompted a radio commentator to observe that the point was not just the murder, but something beyond. What indeed was the point, if not murder? I wondered what it was that would not die, which could not be killed by the fourth, fifth, or even tenth knife blow; what sort of thing that would not die with the body but lived on in the mind of the murderer.
Williams’s answer is that white supremacy demands the death of the “spirit”—that part of our being which lies within and yet extends beyond the body, the part of ourselves which “is beyond the control of pure physical will and resides in the sanctuary of those around us.” “Spirit-murder” must be exceptionally excessive to meet the seemingly bottomless fear and rage that animate prejudice. It requires a level of violence capable of producing degradation, of destroying the specter of Black power which lurks (however counter-factually) as a “predatory” threat in the aggressor’s mind.
Williams situates spirit-murder in the long, painful legacies of spectacular violence visited upon Black people. She interweaves examples of modern racism in New York, including her own experiences as a Black woman, with the civil rights era. And like Kafka, who opens the story of the penal colony after the old commandant who designed the apparatus has been replaced, Williams represents contemporary spectacles of racial violence as haunting remainders of an “unwanted past,” an ancien regime that will not end:
Failure to resolve the dilemma of racial violence merely displaces its power. The legacy of killing finds its way into cultural expectations, archetypes, and ‘isms.’ The echoes of both dead and deadly others acquire a hallucinatory quality; their voices speak of an unwanted past, but also reflect for us images of the future. Today’s world condemns those voices as superstitious and paranoid. Neglected, they speak from the shadows of such inattention, in garbles and growls, in the tongues of the damned and the insane.
The historian Allen Trelease formally locates this “unwanted past” in slavery and resistance to emancipation. He richly details the excessive, “pathological fear . . . not at all justified by the actual danger” felt by whites who defended the institution. Both before and after emancipation “whites were apt to react with disproportionate severity” to Black people. But emancipation and the “advent” of Reconstruction produced “enhanced anxiety[,] . . . intolerance[,] and violence as never before.” Violent repression, Trelease emphasizes, was directed less toward ensuring that Black labor remained a “docile” labor force (“in fact [racial terror] did much more to drive off labor and disrupt economic life”), than toward “keeping blacks within their proper social bounds,” especially preventing voting, officeholding, and crossing social color lines.
If Negroes had been feared even when they were subjected to the control of masters and prewar slave codes, they were infinitely more dangerous now that these controls were lifted. . . . A former Mississippi Klansman justified violence as the only way of protecting white families against what he conceived to be “the threatened and rising arrogance of the negroes.” Cruelty, seemingly beyond the gravity of the provocation, he said, was “justified by the fact that every little insolence, if left unnoticed, would be bragged about by its perpetrator and fellow observers . . . . The news would spread with great rapidity, and there was no telling where it would end. . . .” By this reasoning white men could and did commit the most brutal forms of aggression, convinced all the while that they were acting defensively.
As early as 1865, the year the Civil War ended,
Carl Schurz reported . . . [that] “the maiming and killing of colored men seems to be looked upon by many as one of those venial offenses which must be forgiven to the outraged feelings of a wronged and robbed people.” . . . Certainly whipping and corporal punishment were regarded as the white man’s right and duty, emancipation or no emancipation; organized regulators or vigilantes took up this task . . . and the Klan further institutionalized the practice,” adding other forms of torture and death to the list of “atrocities.”
Page after page of the 1871 U.S. Senate Report and Testimony on the Alleged Outrages in the Southern States, which supported the passage of Section 1983, confirms the extraordinary level of violence that followed. Even a cursory review of the reported outrages in Alamance County, North Carolina between 1868 and 1870, indicates the distinctive role of extraordinary violence.
[A] negro man by the name of Outlaw . . . was taken from his house . . . about one o’clock at night, by a band of from eighty to a hundred men, and hung upon an elm tree, not very far from the court-house door. . . . The newspapers have said that he was guilty of having shot at a band of Ku-Klux that passed through the town some time previous; but that was not true.
Caswell Holt, (colored,) taken from his house in the night, was whipped until blood was streaming from his back; he was then made to bend down, while one of the parties tortured him by rubbing a rough stick up and down his back.
Joseph Harvey, (colored,) taken by fifteen or twenty in disguise, carried about three quarters of a mile from his house, dragged over fences, rocks, through briars, and about one hundred and fifty lashes laid upon his bare back.
Nathan Trollinger, (colored,) taken from his house by men in disguise, severely whipped, and afterwards made to mutilate his own private parts with his pocket knife.
Sally Hall and her two daughters thrown out of their house and whipped, and one of them made to exhibit her person, while the fiends proceeded to inflict blows upon her private parts.
John Bass, (colored,) “potterized.”
The Klan also targeted whites who supported Black people and Reconstruction:
Alonzo B. Corliss, a northern man, who was teaching [in] a colored school . . . was dragged from his bed by twelve or fifteen disguised men, amid the shrieks and cries of his distressed wife, carried a little distance into the woods and severely whipped, the hair and whiskers shaven from one side of his head and face, his head and face cut and disfigured in a most cruel manner, after which he was painted black and left in this condition.
The “ultimate purpose” was to “overthrow the reconstruction acts down South.” In some places “a majority of men” in the Klan had served in the Confederate Army. Having lost the war, they were now refighting with the tools of racial terror.
Not only did white supremacist “aggression [take] every conceivable form,” it was seldom punished; “it simply was not a punishable offense in the eyes of many whites to attack or even kill a Negro.” In many regions of the South, “civil authorities, like the general white public, were either in sympathy . . . or intimidated.” Lynchings were regularly conducted in front of courthouses to reinforce the message that the Klan controlled and was above the law. It was also common for law enforcement officers, courts, the press, and the public to blame Reconstruction “radicalism and negroism, which in the south are one and the same thing,” rather than the white perpetrators of violence. This was true even when law officers and judges became targets of Klan violence for their support of Reconstruction or their efforts to restrain the Klan. Local Klan members perjured themselves as witnesses and violated their oaths as jurors in order to protect each other from prosecution. Others who gave testimony were attacked. In Gullford County, North Carolina, a lawyer who was asked whether the laws were administered “properly and thoroughly” answered that
where parties, for instance, are concerned in outrages committed by the order of which we have been speaking, my observation is that there are no convictions. I know that people have been whipped and scourged, and some have been killed; but the guilty have never been brought to punishment. Of course, the courts are the proper tribunals to award the punishment, but they have never been able to do it in any of those cases. . . . An alibi is proved in nearly every case . . . without any difficulty.
Lawyers who did agree to become involved in the prosecution of Klan members were notified in writing that “they would be visited with punishment” unless they “ceased.” Some prosecutors not only abandoned their cases but felt “compelled” to move to other states. Other officers collaborated with the Klan. The mayor of a town in Alamanee County, North Carolina testified that the “sheriff was connected with [the Klan], and every deputy . . . . [T]hey always hang around the courts to get on the jury . . . . [Y]ou cannot convict them.” Impunity in the infliction of extraordinary violence went hand in hand with the complicity of state law enforcement and judicial officers, and functional immunity from liability in the rare cases brought against officers due to judicial bias, witness intimidation, and jury tampering.
When Southern resistance prevailed and the retreat from Reconstruction became national policy later in the 1870s, anti-Black violence continued. Lynchings morphed from nighttime affairs into full blown spectacles—mass events in broad daylight, publicized in newsprint and on the radio. Experts on the history of lynching emphasize that even though “Black men and women were much more likely to become victims of personal assault, murder, or rape than lynching, and . . . withstood all sorts of injuries and insults on a daily basis[,] . . . lynching held a singular psychological force.” It “came to stand as the primary representation of racial injustice and oppression as a whole,” assuming “this tremendous symbolic power precisely because it was extraordinary and, by its very nature, public and visually sensational.”
I have elsewhere written about the complicity of law enforcement and other legal professionals in lynching, including spectacle lynchings. Others have documented in vivid detail how crime statistics and policing became instruments of Jim Crow segregation as unreconstructed whites seized control of the levers of sovereign power within and well beyond the South. Inscription of the color line on Black bodies was charged not only with racial anxieties but also the erotic, most obviously in the exceptionally violent retaliation against Black men for real and perceived interactions with white women, in the frequency with which anti-Black violence was both actually and symbolically castrating, and in both the sexualization and sexual assault of Black women. The erotic is also present in the proximity, intimacy and raw physical effort required to administer whippings and other common forms of white supremacist torture, as well as in the gruesome acquisition of body parts and photographs of naked, mutilated black bodies as “souvenirs” of spectacle lynchings. A gendered expression of sovereign power is present in the invasion of Mrs. Bumpurs’s apartment as well—the officers’ penetration without notice or consent of Mrs. Bumpurs’s home, and her bent-edged, arthritic resistance met by their wildly disproportionate, ejaculatory, fatal, violence.
C. Disappointed Dominion
“[A]ny account of violence that cannot explain the strike, the blow, the act of sexual violence (including rape), or that fails to understand the way violence can work in the intimate dyad or the face-to-face encounter, fails descriptively, and analytically, to clarify what violence is.” A responsible theory of violence, including extravagant violence, must therefore grapple with rape and other forms of intimate partner violence. While this kind of violence may initially seem quite far afield from cases involving extraordinary violence in policing and prison administration, feminist and queer theory have long identified connections between patriarchal power, the “cage of sex . . . in which all other [cages] are enclosed,” “the family as a male-dominant institution[,] and male-dominant sexuality as the deus ex machina of male power across society.” Gendered and sexual violence share with the extraordinary violence of policing and prison administration not only elements of excess, but also the erotic charge of intimately inflicted physical harm (patriarchal power in society and politics is, on this view, “eroticized power”) and, significantly, the targeting of the body as a principal object and site of subjection, control, and domination.
With respect to excess, women and gender non-conforming people are more likely to suffer extreme violence. They are more likely to be murdered and more likely to suffer physical injury that requires medical treatment from intimate partner sexual and physical assaults than heterosexual men. Although near fatal and fatal injuries are relatively rare as compared to scratches, bruises, and welts in intimate partner abuse, serious injuries include lacerations from knives, broken bones, dislocated joints, head and spinal cord injuries, burns, broken teeth, and brain injuries from being knocked unconscious. Intimate partner violence is pervasive in the United States and other western countries, an “epidemic” affecting millions annually despite hard won reforms since the 1970s that have replaced a permissive legal and cultural regime (in which the “corrective” battery of domestic dependents was lawful and considered a private “family matter”) with criminal prohibitions, networks of women’s shelters, and other support.
Qualitative research emphasizes that intimate partner violence is usually repeated, that “almost all” people targeted “suffer[] some physical violence as a part of the abuse, and while this was often described as ‘not the worst part’ of the abuse in comparison to less visible aspects, it invoke[s] a great deal of fear.” Even though it is common for abuse to become “routine” in intimate partner violence, “incidents of physical violence remain a shock, often experienced as coming ‘out of the blue.’ Interviewees describe both physical shock[]and a feeling of betrayal of the expectation[s] of trust and care in intimate relationships . . . as the hardest to come to terms with.” This kind of abuse is not “something you ‘get used to,’ ” despite the adoption of “skills of precaution and management to try and maintain personal security for themselves and their children.” As one interviewee in a qualitative study reported, her partner “would just blow . . . . [Y]ou stand there and you can’t believe, you cannot believe that this is happening.”
Extraordinary excess lies not just in the gendered nature of such violence—the fact that greater, more harmful, and sexualized violence is visited upon women and gender non-conforming persons by men—but in the underlying breach of trust. Intimate relationships in which violence should be absent, governed by care, devotion, affection, and affirmation of personal autonomy, are perverted into degrading, abusive sites of domination—haunted by foundational acts of physical violence and the ever-looming threat of escalation. Intimate knowledge of a partner’s desires, fears, and vulnerabilities is itself abused—physically, sexually, emotionally, and psychologically. Children are often made hostages and objects of violent escalation to amplify fear and power.
There are competing theoretical accounts of how and on precisely what terms masculine “dominance, potentiated and centrally entitled and expressed sexually” in intimate partner violence translates to social and political domination. But no one doubts the singular terror and harm this violence creates in intimate relationships. There is also broad consensus that intimate partner violence is “fundamentally a product of gender inequality[,] . . . a powerful tool in enforcing and reinforcing gender hierarchies and gender inequalities.” Revealingly, what often sets such violence in motion is “the perception (by men) that women are trying to act ‘equal,’ that they have lost sight of their ‘proper place.’ ” In this respect, the parallels to racialized violence are unmistakable:
[J]ust as Ku Klux Klan violence arose during the Reconstruction period in the South to enforce racial boundaries threatened by the emancipation of millions . . . to remind African Americans of “their place”—so, too, gendered violence can be understood as a tactic for reminding women of their place.
It occurs in intimate relations precisely because “the need to enforce between-group boundaries is greatest when there is a high degree of intimacy between group members.”
The body is so often the target because it represents, synecdochally, all the capacities of subordinate subjects to move, press, and rise beyond “their place.” Once we see the body—its movement, capacity, and crucially, its placement—as a site of control in social hierarchy, deeper connections between gender, race, sexuality, and class unfold. Abuse committed in intimate relations might be read as a distorted private, compensatory expression of both real and (mis)perceived public affronts to the “masculinity” of aggressors (for example, discrimination, economic exploitation, political disenfranchisement). Abuse against people believed to be lower status provides for the assertion of dominion in forms that are unavailable, lost, or threatened in society, work, and politics. Rather than patriarchy radiating outward from the sexual politics of the family, on this account dominion both retreats and amplifies inward, displacing public slights, disappointments, and defeats (which, again, may be real or merely perceived) onto the comparatively safer targets of vulnerable domestic dependents and intimate relations in the private sphere.
There are vast differences between the domestic scene, on the one hand, and police and prison encounters, on the other. But what they share, at least when victims are unarmed or restrained, is the relation of dependence, intimate bodily proximity, status hierarchy, and overweening power. This may help explain why even restrained or otherwise non-threatening, unarmed arrestees and prisoners—people whose lives are literally in the hands of officers—nevertheless become objects of extraordinary violence. The problem is not, or at least not always, “embellished fear” or paranoia on the part of the officer, but rather acute awareness of the target’s relative helplessness and vulnerability, the target’s assumed culpability (social and moral, if not legal), the reception of the target’s assertion of their own humanity, interests, or rights as audacious defiance of the officer’s status and authority, and the opportunity this presents to exercise dominion believed to have been diminished or lost in other ways (through the officer’s subordination to the hierarchy of command, dealing respectfully with other citizens, suspects, and prisoners who have been openly defiant of the officer’s authority, or other social encounters). Put differently, extraordinary excess can arise from displaced aggression, just as it can arise from exaggerated, misplaced fear. And both can be personally and politically useful in keeping others in their place.
As importantly, aggression can be more than a form of compensatory displacement, more than a proportionate reaction to the perceived disappointment of dominion in other relations. It can also be an erotically charged, transgressive embodiment of sovereign power itself—raw, unchecked desire for dominion. To be sovereign is both to be the source of the law and, at least in democratic societies, to be bound by law—bound not just by training, and the law itself, but by oath. Every officer, and certainly those armed with the implements of sovereign power, inhabits and must mediate this contradiction. Having invested energy upholding compliance with law, oneself and for others, sometimes at great personal peril, extraordinary violence holds the seductive appeal of being, however transiently, above the law, of experiencing this singularly ecstatic form of sovereignty (the rapture of “sole and despotic dominion”) in and through the body of another, seizing and inscribing upon it the dictates of one’s will. The perverse pleasure expressed by some officers in the infliction of suffering and the violent fury with which all but total submission is greeted may derive from this source, the desire to embody unbound sovereign power.
III. THE BODY POLITIC
The foregoing analysis draws into relief why Section 1983 liability for extraordinary violence matters. Cases involving licentiousness among those who hold the state’s monopoly on violence are among the most important for the exercise of judicial review in a free society. Little is more destructive of constitutional faith in a republican form of government, where sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, than unconstitutional violence committed “under color” of law by those who wield and embody powers delegated by the people. Self-restraint regarding lawfully delegated authority legitimates possession of the implements of sovereign power. Cases involving extraordinary violence represent the antithesis of self-restraint—not mere errant, or debatable uses of force, but flagrant disregard for the constraints of the Constitution on state action.
The Reconstruction Congress knew this. Whatever else may be said about ambiguities in the text and legislative history of Section 1983, regarding, for example, the availability and scope of municipal liability, or the power to reach private actors, one thing is beyond doubt: The statute operates in derogation of state sovereignty to enforce powers conferred by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to rectify and prevent “outrages” by state officers. Although legislative debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 are relatively sparse and opaque on some interpretive issues, “the debates contain extended discussion of conditions in the South, the breakdown of law and order, the acquiescence of Southern authorities, Klan terrorism against Blacks and republicans, and the consequent need for federal action.” The civil cause of action created by the statute addresses the role of state actors in these “outrages.” The operative language (“deprivation of any [federal] rights, privileges, or immunities” by persons acting “under color of” state law, “custom, or usage”) sweeps beyond outrages, but officer-involved outrages were foundational, animating wrongs for which the statute provides civil liability. Suits seeking relief for the infliction of such exceptional harm thus warrant particular judicial solicitude.
The text of Section 1983 as enacted by Congress is unequivocal that the new federal cause of action operates in derogation of state sovereignty.
[A]ny person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
In view of the text, legislative purpose, and historical context, the modern Court’s reliance on federalism as a ground norm to cabin Section 1983 claims (in cases involving standing to prevent recurrence of harm, officer immunity in damages suits, municipal liability, abstention, class actions, summary judgment, the standard for equitable relief, the interaction of habeas and 1983 damages claims, and the substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine of reasonable force) is the jurisprudential equivalent of lost cause ideology. It relies on the very interpretive tools used to end Reconstruction, return to “home rule,” and place the anti-Black violence of Jim Crow segregation beyond the reach of federal courts.
Two attributes of lost cause historical consciousness are particularly relevant. The first is the idea that the Civil War and Reconstruction did not alter antebellum understandings of state sovereignty—that the exertions of federal power necessary to save the Union did not diminish the sovereignty of the states. On this view, return to “home rule,” which the Court actively supported in the 1870s and 1880s by, among other things, striking down other sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act, confirmed that antebellum federalism principles survived the Civil War. The fact that return to home rule was instrumental to Jim Crow segregation is frequently elided by the modern Court when it invokes federalism principles. Justice Frankfurter’s dissent in Monroe is emblematic, insisting that
[t]he jurisdiction which Article III of the Constitution conferred on the national judiciary reflected the assumption that the state courts, not the federal courts, would remain the primary guardians of that fundamental security of person and property which the long evolution of the common law had secured to one individual as against other individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment did not alter this basic aspect of our federalism.
The effect is to limit the powers conferred by the Reconstruction Amendments to remedy civil rights violations by relying on structural constitutional principles that betray the letter and spirit of these amendments, principles affirmed in precedents that blinked at and emboldened extralegal, violent resistance to Reconstruction. The Civil War and Reconstruction did alter basic aspects of “our federalism,” expanding federal court jurisdiction and with it access to the expertise, “experience, solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a federal forum offers on federal issues.” But instead of solicitude, civil rights litigants all too often find federal courthouses inhospitable.
The second attribute of lost cause ideology is the view that the Reconstruction Congress overreached by legislating rights and remedies on the premise that states could not be trusted to redress federal constitutional violations. Section 1983 is itself excessive on this view, a remainder of Reconstruction and the exceptionally violent resistance that defined it. The Reconstruction Congress legislated no sunset clause in Section 1983. But that has not stopped the modern Court from treating the cause of action like an anachronism, an unwelcome remainder of a state of exception—one of the few statutory enforcement tools that was not struck down by the Court in its retreat from Reconstruction. Within this interpretive horizon, embellished fears about excessive liability and excessive interference with officer discretion and local control become predominant concerns, rather than state sanctioned violence and defiance of federal law. The modern Court has in this way developed a jurisprudence of excess in Section 1983 cases, just not one concerned with the state officer outrages against which the Reconstruction Congress legislated.
This is most evident in qualified immunity doctrine, where concern with excessive liability and judicial interference with executive officer discretion dwarfs concern with whether officers have complied with the Constitution and other laws. But it can be seen in other doctrines, and it resonates with Justice Frankfurter’s view in Monroe that the statute was intended to provide a cause of action only when state law or custom authorizes unconstitutional acts—that is, in the presumptively rare situation in which a state openly defies federal law and state common law provides no redress.
The modern Court has functionally endorsed Frankfurter’s dissent not by revisiting the interpretation of “under color” of law and overturning Monroe, but rather by expanding the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in officer suits, elevating the causation threshold for municipal liability, and limiting access to injunctive relief that could prevent recurring violations. Justice Frankfurter may have lost the battle of statutory interpretation in Monroe, but the modern Court has ensured that he won the war on the use of federalism to limit Section 1983. The result is expansive discretion in officer decisions about the use of force and inconsistency even in cases involving extraordinary violence. Tellingly, the Court has applied the Hope v. Pelzer exception to qualified immunity in only one case since 2002 when Hope was decided, it has emphasized that Hope’s exception for obvious unconstitutionality applies only in “rare” cases, and Hope has featured most prominently in opinions dissenting from the grant of qualified immunity. Thus, the Court has been relatively passive with a doctrine well-suited to address extraordinary violence. In the context of prison violence, the Eighth Amendment standard of liability for the use of force is explicitly tied to “malicious” and “sadistic” violence, but the test requires evidence of the officer’s subjective state of mind, and it allows officers to avoid liability for extraordinary violence skirting the line of malicious and sadistic harm. Even when the line is crossed, prisoners face far greater procedural obstacles than victims of police violence raising Fourth Amendment claims.
These obstacles exist because the only area in which Congress has expressly endorsed the Court’s subordination of Section 1983’s remedial purposes to federalism is in state prison conditions cases. Passed during the most expansive period of mass incarceration when prison litigation reached one-fifth of the total number of civil cases filed in federal courts, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) includes an administrative exhaustion doctrine requiring strict compliance with state grievance procedures, an unwaivable filing fee even for prisoners who meet the in forma pauperis standard, a physical injury rule for money damage claims, and a right-remedy nexus requirement that sharply circumscribes federal equity power. The effects on prison litigation have been palpable. Immediately after the statute passed, decades-old continuing decrees in prison cases were vacated.
In Brown v. Plata, decided fifteen years after the statute took effect, the persistence of breathtakingly cruel, unremedied unconstitutional conditions in California state prisons prompted the Court to uphold federal equity power notwithstanding the strict limits of the PLRA. The case is a parable of the Court’s jurisprudence of excess. Prison conditions in Plata shock the conscience, rivaling those which existed in state prisons under the so-called “hands-off” doctrine prior to Cooper v. Pate when federal courts simply refused to entertain prison conditions claims on federalism grounds. As a result of their woefully inadequate mental health care system, California’s prisons had a suicide rate “80% higher than . . . for prison populations” nationally. Data showed that “72.1% of suicides [in California prisons] involved ‘some measure of inadequate assessment, treatment, or intervention.’ ” Shocking, systemic deficiencies in physical health care (inadequate facilities, doctors, nurses, and delays of months for acute conditions and “extreme departures from the standard of care”) caused “a preventable or possibly preventable death . . . once every five to six days.” Beyond preventable deaths, prisoners “suffering from severe but not life-threatening conditions[] experienced prolonged illness and unnecessary pain.” The record is an intricately detailed catalogue of outrageous, arbitrary suffering.
However, to justify upholding the release of tens of thousands of prisoners notwithstanding the PLRA’s strict right-remedy nexus, the majority could not just rely on the extensive record of suffering. The decree ordered release of healthy prisoners as well as unwell prisoners whose mistreatment did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee of minimally adequate medical care under Estelle v. Gamble. To uphold such sweeping relief, the majority adopted a prophylactic theory of the substantive right. The majority reasoned that the health care system was so dysfunctional that there was a “substantial risk” of prisoners suffering a violation of their rights under Estelle. Releasing prisoners (and moving some to local jails) would increase the state’s capacity to adequately address the health needs of those who remained.
Justice Scalia’s dissent sharply criticized this end run around the statute and its federalism principles. He insisted that Estelle claims exist only when individuals who already have serious medical conditions do not receive treatment because of the state’s deliberate indifference. Thus, no injunction to release prisoners merely at risk of an Estelle violation could be described as “narrowly drawn, . . . extend[ing] no further than necessary to correct the violation” or the “least intrusive means.” Moreover, Rule 23 provides no right to aggregate resolution of such claims given the particularity of each prisoner’s medical condition and their inadequate treatment. Decisions about how to rectify the health care problems in the prison system must remain with state prison officials. The lower court’s prison release order displacing local administrative discretion was “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history,” a “structural injunction” that deems an “entire” state-run prison “system . . . unconstitutional because it may produce constitutional violations.”
Two years earlier, in Haywood v. Drown, the Court overturned parallel state legislative efforts in New York to eliminate Section 1983 money damage claims against corrections officers filed in state court. On a legislative record asserting that such claims were predominantly frivolous, the state stripped its courts of jurisdiction for both Section 1983 and state civil rights claims seeking money damages. Prisoners could still sue for damages, but only against the state itself, not the officer responsible for the harm, only in a separate court, not the state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and only subject to a range of procedural and remedial limitations that do not apply to the Section 1983 cause of action. The Supreme Court struck down the law on the ground that it violated the Supremacy Clause by denying federal right holders access to a congressionally legislated cause of action, forum, and relief to enforce constitutional rights. Like Plata, the case suggests a commitment on the part of the Roberts Court to preserve jurisdiction and remedial power notwithstanding the limitations Congress imposed on prison condition litigation in the PLRA. However, both Plata and Haywood were decided by bare 5–4 majorities, and as in Plata, the dissent in Haywood rested on federalism principles—specifically, the autonomy of states to control state court dockets by refusing jurisdiction of unwelcome federal claims.
The crucial swing vote in both cases was provided by Justice Kennedy. That fragile majority is sure to be tested in a reconfigured Roberts Court more committed to the dissents’ federalism principles. Notice the effects on prison conditions litigation if Plata and Haywood were to be reversed: Federal courts would be virtually closed to claims for injunctive relief under the PLRA and modern standing doctrine; strict officer immunity and municipal liability doctrines already render both state and federal courts inhospitable to Section 1983 money damage claims; and the dissent’s view in Haywood would permit state courts to simply refuse jurisdiction of Section 1983 prisoner claims. Prisoners would be left to state law claims in state court.
This outcome would be consistent with a central premise, arguably the central premise of federalism-based limitations on Section 1983 claims: that leaving federal constitutional right holders to state positive or common law is adequate to protect their federal constitutional rights. This was the structural constitutional core of Frankfurter’s dissent in Monroe. The conventional form of the argument is that when a state officer defends a state law claim (for example, a state common law claim for negligence rather than a federal claim for excessive use of force), the federal constitutional right will arise if the officer asserts that the action was sanctioned by state law. The defense can be rebutted by showing that what the officer did was, in view of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights, ultra vires. Federal law is then adjudicated, just not via a cause of action bottomed on the federal right. In theory, all that is lost is the federal right holder’s option to file in federal court.
The cost of losing access to federal district court as the court of first instance matters if state courts are less hospitable to the claims of federal right holders. This was all too familiar during Reconstruction and Jim Crow segregation. More recently, state courts have faced extraordinary budget crises, forcing some local courts into a form of fiscal parasitism upon the very communities they are supposed to serve. And as Haywood and the cases on which it relies show, state legislative efforts to restrict Section 1983 litigation in state courts are not uncommon.
Notably, however, Section 1983 does not create exclusive federal jurisdiction—it does not rest on the assumption that state courts are categorically untrustworthy. Concurrent state court jurisdiction decentralizes judgments about which forum is appropriate, allowing the federal right holder to choose. The plaintiff, on advice of counsel, has the right to assess the specific circumstantial risks of hostility in state court, the costs and benefits of filing in federal court, and any other doctrinal and strategic considerations that may inform choice of forum. Using a broad structural constitutional principle such as federalism to displace congressionally endorsed, decentralized decision-making by the federal right holder with the Court’s arm chair conclusions about the fidelity and solicitude of state courts is precisely the kind of “Mr. Fix-It-Mentality” Justice Scalia rightly criticized as imperious judicial policymaking in a civil liberties case. It also flatly contradicts the Court’s near complete deference to Congress’s remedy-creating power in other settings. Most prominently, the Court has deferred to any evidence that Congress has established an alternative remedial scheme when the question is whether the Court should recognize an implied right of action to enforce constitutional rights violated by federal officers, an implied right of action to enforce statutory rights, or a right of action grounded in equity under Ex parte Young. If judicial restraint demands deference to the decision of Congress to create remedies in these settings, deference is owed to the forum-selection authority Congress granted federal right holders seeking relief under Section 1983. Conspicuously, the Court’s Section 1983 jurisprudence runs headlong in the opposite direction.
Also lost in enforcing federal civil rights through state law claims is the nexus between the federal right, the cause of action, and the remedy Section 1983 creates. The nexus between injury, right, cause of action, and remedy might seem like an abstraction. After all, what should it matter if a plaintiff receives $100,000 in damages on a state tort claim or $100,000 on a federal Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983; so too a state injunction reaching the same conduct as a federal injunction? The difficulty is that state law and constitutional harms are not necessarily equivalent. There may be no state cause of action that overlaps with certain constitutional injuries. Even when there is, the elements of a state law cause of action, state procedure, and state remedies doctrine may defeat or limit recovery for certain violations of federal law. Ultimately, state law is not designed to implement federal interests and enforce federal rights.
State law may even be hostile to federal rights. Causes of action designed to address harm inflicted by private persons do not reflect the anti-democratic harm arising from the violation of federal rights by an officer of the state acting “under color of law” with the badges, implements, and armory of the state’s monopoly on violence. Section 1983 claims, by contrast, name the abuse of sovereign authority directly and force the officer or municipal government to answer for it. If the essence of corrective justice is that “liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one person on another . . . simultaneously taking away the defendant’s excess and making good the plaintiff’s deficiency[,]” then the right, cause of action, and remedy should correlatively address the injury and injustice of abuse of sovereign power.
The point is not that corrective justice requires perfect mirroring between the cause of action and the injury, but rather that the Court owes deference to the congressional judgment to make injury, right, and remedy mutually correlative rather than contingent on state common law where constitutional rights are concerned. Whatever wisdom and policy justified the common law approach to enforcing federal law in officer suits during the antebellum period, Reconstruction revealed the deadly consequences of its potential for abuse (in the form of “outrages”) and the Reconstruction Amendments empowered Congress to provide a less circuitous remedial path. The presumption in favor of state common law causes of action is precisely what Section 1983 rejects by bottoming a cause of action on the federal right itself. Lastly, it is no answer to say that the Supreme Court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to correct underenforcement of federal civil rights when it decides so few appeals from state courts.
These arguments have little resonance within the interpretive horizon of the modern Court’s federalism revival. Suit in state court under state law is presumptively superior as measured against the potential “excesses” of federal judicial intervention. Structural constitutional attachments have in this way come to dominate substantive constitutional rights, legislative text, and federal court remedial power. Unlike Kafka’s penal colony, however, where the apparatus responsible for the extraordinary excesses of the ancien regime was being dismantled and the officer’s perverse attachment to it was reassuringly anachronistic, here, now it is the second Reconstruction that is being dismantled, our body politic still transfigured by the inscriptions of sovereign power’s outrageous excess.
