author: Mr. Justice Blackmun Mr. Justice Stevens, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Powell,

text:
    BALLEW v. GEORGIA
    No. 76-761.
    Argued November 1, 1977
    Decided March 21, 1978
    Blackmun,. J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 245. White, J., filed a statement concurring in the judgment, post, p. 245. Powell, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 245. Brennan, J., filed a separate opinion, in which Stewart and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 246.

      Michael Clutter argued the cause for petitioner pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Robert Eugene Smith.

      Leonard W. Rhodes argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Charles. H. Keating, Jr., and James J. Clancy filed a brief for Citizens for Decency Through Law, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Mr. Justice Blackmun

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Stevens joined.

This case presents the issue whether a state criminal trial to a jury of only five persons deprives the accused of the right to trial by jury guaranteed to him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Our resolution of the issue requires an application of principles enunciated in Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), where the use of a six-person jury in a state criminal trial was upheld against similar constitutional attack.

I

In November 1973 petitioner Claude Davis Ballew was the manager of the Paris Adult Theatre at 320 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Ga. On November 9 two investigators from the Fulton County Solicitor General’s office viewed at the theater a motion picture film entitled “Behind the Green Door.” Record 46-48,' 90. After they had seen the film, they obtained a warrant for its seizure, returned to the theater, viewed the film once again, and seized it. Id., at 48-50, 91. Petitioner and a cashier were arrested.’ Investigators returned to the theater on November 26, viewed the film in its entirety, secured still another warrant, and on November 27 once again viewed the motion picture and seized a second copy of the film. Id., at 53-55.

On September 14, 1974, petitioner was charged in a two-count misdemeanor accusation with

“distributing obscene materials in violation of Georgia Code Section 26-2101 in that the said accused did, knowing the obscene nature thereof, exhibit a motion picture film entitled ‘Behind the Green Door’ that contained obscene and indecent scenes . . . .” App. 4 — 6.

Petitioner was brought to trial in the Criminal Court of Fulton County. After a jury of 5 persons had been selected and sworn, petitioner moved that the court impanel a jury of 12 persons. Record 37-38. That court, however, tried its misdemeanor cases before juries of five persons pursuant to Ga. Const., Art. 6. § 16, ¶ 1, codified as Ga. Code §2-5101 (1975), and to 1890-1891 Ga. Laws, No. 278, pp. 937-938, and 1935 Ga. Laws, No. 38, p. 498. Petitioner contended that for an obscenity trial, a jury of only five was constitutionally inadequate to assess the contemporary standards of the community. Record 13, 38. He also argued that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required a jury of at least six members in criminal cases. Id., at 38.

The motion for a 12-person jury was overruled, and the trial went on to its conclusion before the 5-person jury that had been impaneled. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for 38 minutes and returned a verdict of guilty on both counts of the accusation. Id., at 205-208. The court imposed a sentence of one year and a $1,000 fine on each count, the periods of incarceration to run concurrently and to be suspended upon payment of the fines. Id., at 16-17, 209. After a subsequent hearing, the court denied an amended motion for a new trial.

Petitioner took an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia. There he argued: First, the evidence was insufficient. Second, the trial court committed several First Amendment errors, namely, that the film as a matter of law was not obscene, and that the jury instructions incorrectly explained the standard of scienter, the definition of obscenity, and the scope of community standards. Third, the seizures of the films were illegal. Fourth, the convictions on both counts had placed petitioner in double jeopardy because he had shown only one motion picture. Fifth, the use of the five-member jury deprived him of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Id., at 222-224.

The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s contentions. 138 Ga. App. 530, 227 S. E. 2d 65 (1976). The court independently reviewed the film in its entirety and held it to be “hard core pornography” and “obscene as a matter of constitutional law and fact.” Id., at 532-533, 227 S. E. 2d, at 67-68. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that petitioner possessed the requisite scienter. As manager of the theater, petitioner had advertised the movie, had sold tickets, was present when the films were exhibited, had pressed the button that allowed entrance to the seating area, and had locked the door after each arrest. This evidence, according to the court, met the constructive-knowledge standard of § 26-2101. The court found no errors in the instructions, in the issuance of the warrants, or in the presence of the two convictions. In its consideration of the five-person-jury issue, the court noted that Williams v. Florida had not established a constitutional minimum number of jurors. Absent a holding by this Court that a five-person jury was constitutionally inadequate, the Court of Appeals considered itself bound by Sanders v. State, 234 Ga. 586, 216 S. E. 2d 838 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 931 (1976), where the constitutionality of the five-person jury had been upheld. The court also cited the earlier case of McIntyre v. State, 190 Ga. 872, 11 S. E. 2d 5 (1940), a holding to the same general effect but without elaboration.

The Supreme Court of Georgia denied certiorari. App. 26. In his petition for certiorari here, petitioner raised three issues: the unconstitutionality of the five-person jury; the constitutional sufficiency of the jury instructions on scienter and constructive, rather than actual, knowledge of the contents of the film; and obscenity vel non. We granted certiorari. 429 U. S. 1071 (1977). Because we now hold that the five-member jury does not satisfy the jury trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth, we do not reach the other issues.

II

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury in all state nonpetty criminal cases. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159-162 (1968). The Court in Duncan applied this Sixth Amendment right to the States because “trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” Id., at 149. The right attaches in the present case because the maximum penalty for violating § 26-2101, as it existed at the time of the alleged offenses, exceeded six months’ imprisonment. See Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 68-69 (1970) (opinion of White, J.).

In Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 100, the Court reaffirmed that the “purpose of the jury trial, as we noted in Duncan, is to prevent oppression by the Government. ‘Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.’ . Duncan v. Louisiana, [391 U. S.,] at 156.” See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 410 (1972) (opinion of White, J.). This purpose is attained by the participation of the community in determinations of guilt and by the application of the common sense of laymen who, as jurors, consider the case. Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 100.

Williams held that these functions and this purpose could be fulfilled by a jury of six members. As the Court’s opinion in that case explained at some length, id., at 86-90, common-law juries included 12 members by historical accident, “unrelated to the great purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.” Id., at 89-90. The Courts earlier cases that had assumed the number 12 to be constitutionally compelled were set to one side because they had not considered history and the function of the jury. Id., at 90-92. Rather than requiring 12 members, then, the Sixth Amendment mandated a jury only of sufficient size to promote group deliberation, to insulate members from outside intimidation, and to provide a representative cross-section of the community. Id., at 100. Although recognizing that by 1970 little empirical research had evaluated jury performance, the Court found no evidence that the reliability of jury verdicts diminished with six-member panels. Nor did the Court anticipate significant differences in result, including the frequency of “hung” juries. Id., at 101-102, and nn. 47 and 48. Because the reduction in size did not threaten exclusion of any particular class from jury roles, concern that the representative or cross-section character of the jury would suffer with a decrease to six members seemed “an unrealistic one.” Id., at 102. As a consequence, the six-person jury was held not to violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Ill

When the Court in Williams permitted the reduction in jury size — or, to put it another way, when it held that a jury of six was not unconstitutional — it expressly reserved ruling on the issue whether a number smaller than six passed constitutional scrutiny. Id., at 91 n. 28. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 365-366 (1972) (concurring opinion). The Court refused to speculate when this so-called “slippery slope” would become too steep. We face now, however, the twofold question whether a further reduction in the size of the state criminal trial jury does make the grade too dangerous, that is, whether it inhibits the functioning of the jury as an institution to a significant degree, and, if so, whether any state interest counterbalances and justifies the disruption so as to preserve its constitutionality.

Williams v. Florida and Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149 (1973) (where the Court held that a jury of six members did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case), generated a quantity of scholarly work on jury size. These writings do not draw or identify a bright line below which the number of jurors would not be able to function as required by the standards enunciated in Williams. On the other hand, they raise significant questions about the wisdom and constitutionality of a reduction below six. We examine these concerns:

First, recent empirical data suggest that progressively smaller juries are less likely to foster effective group deliberation. At some point, this decline leads to inaccurate fact-finding and incorrect application of the common sense of the community to the facts. Generally, a positive correlation exists between group size and the quality of both group performance and group productivity. A variety of explanations have been offered for this conclusion. Several are particularly applicable in the jury setting. The smaller the group, the less likely are members to make critical contributions necessary for the solution of a given problem. Because most juries are not permitted to take notes, see Forston, Sense and NonSense : Jury Trial Communication, 1975 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 601, 631-633, memory is important for accurate jury deliberations. As juries decrease in size, then, they are less likely to have members who remember each of the important pieces of evidence or argument. Furthermore, the smaller the group, the less likely it is to overcome the biases of its members to obtain an accurate result. When individual and group decisionmaking were compared, it was seen that groups performed better because prejudices of individuals were frequently counterbalanced, and objectivity resulted. Groups also exhibited increased motivation and self-criticism. All these advantages, except, perhaps, self-motivation, tend to diminish as the size of the group diminishes. Because juries frequently face complex problems laden with value choices, the benefits are important and should be retained. In particular, the counterbalancing of various biases is critical to the accurate application of the common sense of the community to the facts of any given case.

Second, the data now raise doubts about the accuracy of the results achieved by smaller and smaller panels. Statistical studies suggest that the risk of convicting an innocent person (Type I error) rises as the size of the jury diminishes. Because the risk of not convicting a guilty person (Type II error) increases with the size of the panel, an optimal jury size can be selected as a function of the interaction between the two risks. Nagel and Neef concluded that the optimal size, for the purpose of minimizing errors, should vary with the importance attached to the two types of mistakes. After weighting Type I error as 10 times more significant than Type II, perhaps not an unreasonable assumption, they concluded that the optimal jury size was between six and eight. As the size diminished to five and below, the weighted sum of errors increased because of the enlarging risk of the conviction of innocent defendants.

Another doubt about progressively smaller juries arises from the increasing inconsistency that results from the decreases. Saks argued that the “more a jury type fosters consistency, the greater will be the proportion of juries which select the correct (i e., the same) verdict and the fewer ‘errors’ will be made.” Saks 86-87. From his mock trials held before undergraduates and former jurors, he computed the percentage of “correct” decisions rendered by 12-person and 6-person panels. In the student experiment, 12-person groups reached correct verdicts 83% of the time; 6-person panels reached correct verdicts 69% of the time. The results for the former-juror study were 71% for the 12-person groups and 57% for the 6-person groups. Ibid. Working with statistics described in H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 460 (1966), Nagel and Neef tested the average conviction propensity of juries, that is, the likelihood that any given jury of a set would convict the defendant. They found that half of all 12-person juries would have average conviction propensities that varied by no more than 20 points. Half of all six-person juries, on the other hand, had average conviction propensities varying by 30 points, a difference they found significant in both real and percentage terms. Lempert reached similar results when he considered the likelihood of juries to compromise over the various views of their members, an important phenomenon for the fulfillment of the commonsense function. In civil trials averaging occurs with respect to damages amounts. In criminal trials it relates to numbers of counts and lesser included offenses. And he predicted that compromises would be more consistent when larger juries were employed. For example, 12-person juries could be expected to reach extreme compromises in 4% of the cases, while 6-person panels would reach extreme results in 16%. All three of these post-Williams studies, therefore, raise significant doubts about the consistency and reliability of the decisions of smaller juries.

Third, the data suggest that the verdicts of jury deliberation in criminal cases will vary as juries become smaller, and that the variance amounts to an imbalance to the detriment of one side, the defense. Both Lempert and Zeisel found that the number of hung juries would diminish as the panels decreased in size. Zeisel said that the number would be cut in half — from 5% to 2.4% with a decrease from 12 to 6 members. Both studies emphasized that juries in criminal cases generally hang with only one, or more likely two, jurors remaining unconvinced of guilt. Also, group theory suggests that a person in the minority will adhere to his position more frequently when he has at least one other person supporting his argument. In the jury setting the significance of this tendency is demonstrated by the following figures: If a minority viewpoint is shared by 10% of the community, 28.2% of 12-member juries may be expected to have no minority representation, but 53.1% of 6-member juries would have none. Thirty-four percent of 12-member panels could be expected to have two minority members, while only 11% of 6-member panels would have two. As the numbers diminish below six, even fewer panels would have one member with the minority viewpoint and still fewer would have two. The chance for hung juries would decline accordingly.

Fourth, what has just been said about the presence of minority viewpoint as juries decrease in size foretells problems not only for jury decisionmaking, but also for the representation of minority groups in the community. The Court repeatedly has held that meaningful community participation cannot be attained with the exclusion of minorities or other identifiable groups from jury service. “It is part of the established tradition in the use of juries as instruments of public justice that the jury be a body truly representative of the community.” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130 (1940). The exclusion of elements of the community from participation “contravenes the very idea of a jury . . . composed of 'the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine.'” Carter v. Jury Comm’n, 396 U. S. 320, 330 (1970), quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 308 (1880). Although the Court in Williams concluded that the six-person jury did not fail to represent adequately a cross-section of the community, the opportunity for meaningful and appropriate representation does decrease with the size of the panels. Thus, if a minority group constitutes 10% of the community, 53.1% of randomly selected six-member juries could be expected to have no minority representative among their members, and 89% not to have two. Further reduction in size will erect additional barriers to representation.

Fifth, several authors have identified in jury research methodological problems tending to mask differences in the operation of smaller and larger juries. For example, because the judicial system handles so many clear cases, decisionmakers will reach similar results through similar analyses most of the time. One study concluded that smaller and larger juries could disagree in their verdicts in no more than 14% of the cases. Disparities, therefore, appear in only small percentages. Nationwide, however, these small percentages will represent a large number of cases. And it is with respect to those cases that the jury trial right has its greatest value. When the case is close, and the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not readily apparent, a properly functioning jury system will insure evaluation by the sense of the community and will also tend to insure accurate factfinding.

Studies that aggregate data also risk masking case-by-case differences in jury deliberations. The authors, H. Kalven and H. Zeisel, of The American Jury (1966), examined the judge-jury disagreement. They found that judges held for plaintiffs 67% of the time and that juries held for plaintiffs 59%, an insignificant difference. Yet case-by-case comparison revealed judge-jury disagreement in 22% of the cases. Id., at 63, cited in Lempert 656. This casts doubt on the conclusion of another study that compared the aggregate results of civil cases tried before 6-member juries with those of 12-member jury trials. The investigator in that study had claimed support for his hypothesis that damages awards did not vary with the reduction in jury size. Although some might say that figures in the aggregate may have supported this conclusion, a closer view of the cases reveals greater variation in the results of the smaller panels, i. e., a standard deviation of $58,335 for the 6-member juries, and of $24,834 for the 12-member juries. Again, the averages masked significant case-by-case differences that must be considered when evaluating jury function and performance.

IV

While we adhere to, and reaffirm our holding in Williams v. Florida, these studies, most of which have been made since Williams was decided in 1970, lead us to conclude that the purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members. We readily admit that we do not pretend to discern a clear line between six members and five. But the assembled data raise substantial doubt about the reliability and appropriate representation of pairéis smaller than six. Because of the fundamental importance of the jury trial to the American system of criminal justice, any further reduction that promotes inaccurate and possibly biased decisionmaking, that causes untoward differences in verdicts, and that prevents juries from truly representing their communities, attains constitutional significance.

Georgia here presents no persuasive argument that a reduction to five does not offend important Sixth Amendment interests. First, its reliance on Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), for the proposition that the Court previously has approved the five-person jury is misplaced. In Johnson the petitioner challenged the Louisiana statute that permitted felony convictions on less-than-unanimous verdicts. The prosecution had to garner only nine votes of the 12-member jury to convict in a felony trial. The Court held that the statute did not violate the due process guarantee by diluting the reasonable-doubt standard. Id., at 363. The only discussion of the five-person panels, which heard less serious offenses, was with respect to the petitioner’s equal protection challenge. He contended that requiring only nine members of a 12-person panel to convict in a felony case was a deprival of equal protection when a unanimous verdict was required from the 5-member panel used in a misdemeanor trial. The Court held merely that the classification was not invidious. Id., at 364. Because the issue of the constitutionality of the five-member jury was not then before the Court, it did not rule upon it.

Second, Georgia argues that its use of five-member juries does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because they are used only in misdemeanor cases. If six persons may constitutionally assess the felony charge in Williams, the State reasons, five persons should be a constitutionally adequate number for a misdemeanor trial. The problem with this argument is that the purpose and functions of the jury do not vary significantly with the importance of the crime. In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 (1970), the Court held that the right to a jury trial attached in both felony and misdemeanor cases. Only in cases concerning truly petty crimes, where the deprivation of liberty was minimal, did the defendant have no Constitutional right to trial by jury. In the present case the possible deprivation of liberty is substantial. The State charged petitioner with misdemeanors under Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2101 (1972), and he has been given concurrent sentences of imprisonment, each for one year, and fines totaling $2,000 have been imposed. We cannot conclude that there is less need for the imposition and the direction of the sense of the community in this case than when the State has chosen to label an offense a felony. The need for- an effective jury here must be judged by the same standards announced and applied in Williams v. Florida.

Third, the retention by Georgia of the unanimity requirement does not solve the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment problem.' Our concern has to do with the ability of the smaller group to perform the functions mandated by the Amendments. That a five-person jury may return a unanimous decision does not speak to the questions whether the group engaged in meaningful deliberation, could remember all the important facts and arguments, and truly represented the sense of the entire community. Despite the presence of the unanimity requirement, then, we cannot conclude that “the interest of the defendant in having the judgment of his peers interposed between himself and the officers of the State who prosecute and judge him is equally well served” by the five-person panel. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S., at 411 (opinion of White, J.).

Fourth, Georgia submits that the five-person jury adequately represents the community because there is no arbitrary exclusion of any particular class. We agree that it has not been demonstrated that the Georgia system violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of race or some other improper classification. See Carter v. Jury Comm’n, 396 U. S. 320 (1970); Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 (1940). But the data outlined above raise substantial doubt about the ability of juries truly to represent the community as membership decreases below six. If the smaller and smaller juries will lack consistency, as the cited studies suggest, then the sense of the community will not be applied equally in like cases. Not only is the representation of racial minorities threatened in such circumstances, but also majority attitude or various minority positions may be miscontrued or misapplied by the smaller groups. Even though the facts of this case would not establish a jury discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause, the question of representation does constitute one factor of several that, when combined, create a problem of constitutional significance under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fifth, the empirical data cited by Georgia do not relieve our doubts. The State relies on the Saks study for the proposition that a decline in the number of jurors will not affect the aggregate number of convictions or hung juries. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. This conclusion, however, is only one of several in the Saks study; that study eventually concludes:

“Larger juries (size twelve) are preferable to smaller juries (six). They produce longer deliberations, more communication, far better community representation, and, possibly, greater verdict reliability (consistency).” Saks 107.

Far from relieving our concerns, then, the Saks study supports the conclusion that further reduction in jury size threatens Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment interests.

Methodological problems prevent reliance on the three studies that do purport to bolster Georgia's position. The reliability of the two Michigan studies cited by the State has been criticized elsewhere. The critical problem with the Michigan laboratory experiment, which used a mock civil trial, was the apparent clarity of the case. Not one of the juries found for the plaintiff in the tort suit; this masked any potential difference in the decisionmaking of larger and smaller panels. The results also have been doubted because in the experiment only students composed the juries, only 16 juries were tested, and only a video tape of the mock trial was presented. The statistical review of the results of actual jury trials in Michigan erroneously aggregated outcomes. It is also said that it failed to take account of important changes of court procedure initiated at the time of the reduction in size from 12 to 6 members. The Davis study, which employed a mock criminal trial for rape, also presented an extreme set of facts so that none of the panels rendered a guilty verdict. None of these three reports, therefore, convinces us that a reduction in the number of jurors below six will not affect to a constitutional degree the functioning of juries in criminal trials.

V

With the reduction in the number of jurors below six creating a substantial threat to Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, we must consider whether any interest of the State justifies the reduction. We find no significant state advantage in reducing the number of jurors from six to five.

The States utilize juries of less than 12 primarily for administrative reasons. Savings in court time and in financial costs are claimed to justify the reductions. The financial benefits of the reduction from 12 to 6 are substantial; this is mainly because fewer jurors draw daily allowances as they hear cases. On the other hand, the asserted saving in judicial time is not so clear. Pabst in his study found little reduction in the time for voir dire with the six-person jury because many questions were directed at the veniremen as a group. Total trial time did not diminish, and court delays and backlogs improved very little. The point that is to be made, of course, is that a reduction in size from six to five or four or even three would save the States little. They could reduce slightly the daily allowances, but with a reduction from six to five the saving would be minimal. If little time is gained by the reduction from 12 to 6, less will be gained with a reduction from 6 to 5. Perhaps this explains why only two States, Georgia and Virginia, have reduced the size of juries in certain nonpetty criminal cases to five. Other States appear content with six members or more. In short, the State has offered little or no justification for its reduction to five members.

Petitioner, therefore, has established that his trial on criminal charges before a five-member jury deprived him of the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

VI

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Stevens,

concurring.

While I join Mr. Justice Blackmun's opinion, I have not altered the views I expressed in Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188.

Mr. Justice White,

concurring in the judgment.

Agreeing that a jury of fewer than six persons would fail to represent the sense of the community and hence not satisfy the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, I concur in the judgment of reversal.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment, as I agree that use of a jury as small as five members, with authority to convict for serious offenses, involves grave questions of fairness. As the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackmun indicates, the line between five- and six-member juries is difficult to justify, but a line has to be drawn somewhere if the substance of jury trial is to be preserved.

I do not agree, however, that every feature of jury trial practice must be the same in both federal and state courts. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 414 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring). Because the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackmun today assumes full incorporation of the Sixth Amendment by the Fourteenth Amendment contrary to my view in Apodaca, I do not join it. Also, I have reservations as to the wisdom— as well as the necessity — of Mr. Justice Blackmun’s heavy reliance on numerology derived from statistical studies. Moreover, neither the validity nor the methodology employed by the studies cited was subjected to the traditional testing mechanisms of the adversary process. The studies relied on merely represent unexamined findings of persons interested in the jury system.

For these reasons I concur only in the judgment.

Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join.

I join Mr. Justice Blackmun’s opinion insofar as it holds that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require juries in criminal trials to contain more than five persons. However, I cannot agree that petitioner can be subjected to a new trial, since I continue to adhere to my belief that Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2101 (1972) is overbroad and therefore facially unconstitutional. See Sanders v. Georgia, 424 U. S. 931 (1976) (dissent from denial of certiorari). See also Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 73 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

       The Sixth Amendment reads:
      “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
      The Amendment’s provision as to trial by jury is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968).

       Georgia Code Ann. § 26-2101 (1972), in effect at the time of the alleged offenses, was entitled “Distributing obscene materials” and read:
      “(a) A person commits the offense of distributing obscene materials when he sells, lends, rents, leases, gives, advertises, publishes, exhibits or otherwise disseminates to any person any obscene material of any description, knowing the obscene nature thereof, or who offers to do so, or who possesses such material with the intent so to do: Provided, that the word ‘knowing’ as used herein shall be deemed to be either actual or constructive knowledge of the obscene contents of the subject-matter; and a person has constructive knowledge of the obscene contents if he has knowledge of facts wihieh would put a reasonable and prudent man on notice as to the suspect nature of the material.
      “(b) Material is obscene if considered as a whole, applying community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion, and utterly without redeeming social value and if, in addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing such matters. . . .”
      1975 Ga. Laws No. 204, p. 498, now Ga. Code Ann. §26-2101 (Supp. 1977), entirely superseded the earlier version.

       The name of the Criminal Court of Eulton County was changed, effective January 2, 1977, by the merger of that court with the Civil Court of Eulton County into a tribunal now known as the State Court of Fulton County. 1976 Ga. Laws No. 1004, p. 3023.

       Petitioner asked, in the alternative, that the case be transferred to the Fulton County Superior Court. That court had concurrent jurisdiction over the case. Ga. Const., Art. 6, § 4, ¶ 1, codified as Ga. Code § 2-3901 (1975); Nobles v. State, 81 Ga. App. 229, 58 S. E. 2d 496 (1950). The Superior Court could have impaneled a jury of 12. Ga. Const., Art. 6, §16, fl, codified as Ga. Code §2-5101 (1975). Because the State had the choice of bringing the case in either the Criminal Court or the Superior Court, petitioner argued that trial before the smaller jury violated equal protection and due process guaranteed him under the Fourteenth Amendment. Record 12-13. The transfer was denied. He has not pressed the contention before this Court, and we do not reach it.

       1890-1891 Ga. Laws, No. 278, pp. 937-938, states in part:
      “The proceedings [in the Criminal Court of Atlanta] after information or accusation, shall conform to the rules governing like proceedings in the Superior Courts, except that the jury in said court, shall consist of five, to be stricken alternately by the defendant and State from a panel of twelve. The defendant shall be entitled to four (4) strikes and the State three (3) and the five remaining jurors shall compose the jury.”
      The cited 1935 statute changed the name of the Criminal Court of Atlanta to the Criminal Court of Fulton County. It was intimated at oral argument that only this particular court in Georgia .employed fewer than six jurors. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.
      Effective March 24, 1976, the number of jurors in the Criminal Court of Fulton County was changed from five to six. 1976 Ga. Laws No. 1003, p. 3019.
      Irrespective of its size, the Georgia jury in a criminal trial, in order to convict, must do so by unanimous vote. Ball v. State, 9 Ga. App. 162, 70S. E. 888 (1911).

       Petitioner, in his amended motion for a new trial, argued that the films were seized illegally under a defective warrant; that the obscenity statute, § 26-2101, violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; that the double conviction had placed petitioner in double jeopardy, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Ga. Code § 2-108 (1975); that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the trial court erroneously excluded the testimony of a defense expert witness; and that the court’s instruction on scienter improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense. Record 19-21.

       The maximum penalty for a conviction of a misdemeanor in Georgia in 1973 was imprisonment for not to exceed 12 months, or a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both. Ga. Code Ann. §27-2506 (1972). With the change in § 26-2101 effected by 1975 Ga. Laws No. 204, p. 498, the offenses charged against petitioner would now be punishable as for “a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature,” and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for not to exceed 12 months, or a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both. Ga. Code § 27-2506 (c) (Supp. 1977).

       The Court rejected the assumption, made in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 349 (1898), and certain later cases, see Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 288 (1930); Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516, 519, 528 (1905); and Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 586 (1900), that the 12-member feature was a constitutional requirement.

       In the cited footnote the Court said: “We have no occasion in this case to determine what minimum number can still constitute a ‘jur}',’ but we do not doubt that six is above that minimum.”
      Respondent picks up the last phrase with absolute literalness here when it argues: “If six is above the minimum, five cannot be below the minimum. There is no number in between.” Brief for Respondent 4; Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. We, however, do not accept the proposition that by stating the number six was “above” the constitutional minimum the Court, by implication, held that at least the number five was constitutional. Instead, the Court was holding that six passed constitutional muster but was reserving judgment on any. number less than six.

         E. g., M. Saks, Jury Verdicts (1977) (hereinafter cited as Saks); Bogue & Fritz, The Six-Man Jury, 17 S. D. L. Rev. 285 (1972); Davis, Kerr, Atkin, Holt, & Mech, The Decision Processes of 6- and 12-Person Mock Juries Assigned Unanimous and Two-Thirds Majority Rules, 32 J. of Personality & Soc. Psych. 1 (1975); Diamond, A Jury Experiment Reanalyzed, 7 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 520 (1974); Friedman, Trial by Jury: Criteria for Convictions, Jury Size and Type I and Type II Errors, 26-2 Am. Stat. 21 (Apr. 1972) (hereinafter cited as Friedman); Institute of Judicial Administration, A Comparison of Six- and Twelve-Member Civil Juries in New Jersey Superior and County Courts (1972); Lempert, Uncovering “Nondiscernible” Differences: Empirical Research and the Jury-Size Cases, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 643 (1975) (hereinafter cited as Lempert); Nagel & Neef, Deductive Modeling to Determine an Optimum Jury Size and Fraction Required to Convict, 1975 Wash. U. L. Q. 933 (hereinafter cited as Nagel & Neef); New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Six-Member Juries (1971); Pabst, Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man versus Twelve-Man Juries, 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 326 (1972) (hereinafter cited as Pabst); Saks, Ignorance of Science Is No Excuse, 10 Trial 18 (Nov.-Dec. 1974); Thompson, Six Will Do!, 10 Trial 12 (Nov.-Dec. 1974); Zeisel, Twelve is Just, 10 Trial 13 (Nov.-Dec. 1974); Zeisel, . . . And Then There Were None: The Diminution of the Federal Jury, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 710 (1971) (hereinafter cited as Zeisel); Zeisel, The Waning of the American Jury, 58 A. B. A. J. 367 (1972); Zeisel & Diamond, "Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 281 (1974) (hereinafter cited as Zeisel & Diamond); Note, The Effect of Jury Size on the Probability of Conviction: An Evaluation of Williams v. Florida, 22 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 529 (1971) (hereinafter cited as Note, Case W. Res.); Note, Six-Member and Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study of Trial Results, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 671 (1973); Note, An Empirical Study of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 712 (1973).
      Some of these studies have been pressed upon us by the parties. Brief for Petitioner 7-9; Tr. of Oral Arg. 26-27.
      We have considered them carefully because they provide the only basis, besides judicial hunch, for a decision about whether smaller and smaller juries will be able to fulfill the purpose and functions of the Sixth Amendment. Without an examination about how juries and small groups actually work, we would not understand the basis for the conclusion of Mr. Justice Powell that "a line has to be drawn somewhere.” We also note that The Chief Justice did not shrink from the use of empirical data in Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 100-102, 105 (1970), when the data were used to support the constitutionality of the six-person criminal jury, or in Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 158-160 (1973), a decision also joined by Mr. Justice Rehnquist.

       Two researchers have summarized the findings of 31 studies in which the size of groups from 2 to 20 members was an important variable. They concluded that there were no conditions under which smaller groups were superior in the quality of group performance and group productivity. Thomas & Fink, Effects of Group Size, 60 Psych., Bull. 371, 373 (1963), cited in Lempert 685. See Saks 77 et seq.; 107.

       See Faust, Group versus Individual Problem-Solving, 59 J. Ab. & Soc. Psych. 68, 71 (1959), cited in Lempert 685 and 686.

       Saks 77 et seq.; see Kelley & Thibaut, Group Problem Solving, 4 Handbook of Soc. Psych. 68-69 (2d ed., G. Lindzey & E. Anderson 1969) (hereinafter cited as Kelley & Thibaut).

       Lempert 687-688, citing Barnlund, A Comparative Study of Individual, Majority, and Group Judgment, 58 J. Ab. & Soc. Psych. 55, 59 (1959); see Kelley & Thibaut 67.

       Lempert 687-688, citing Barnlund, supra n. 14, pp. 58-59.

       Friedman; Nagel & Neef.

       Nagel & Neef 945.

        Id., at 946-948, 956, 975. Friedman reached a similar conclusion. He varied the appearance of guilt in his statistical study. The more guilty the person appeared, the greater the chance that a 6-member panel would convict when a 12-member panel would not. As jury size was reduced, the risk of Type I error would increase, Friedman said, without a significant corresponding advantage in reducing Type II error. Friedman 23.

       Nagel & Neef 952, 971, concluded that the average juror had a propensity to convict more frequently than to acquit, a tendency designated by the figure .677. In other words, if the average jury considered the average case, 67.7% of the jurors would vote to convict.

       With the average juror having a conviction propensity of .677, the average 12-member jury propensities ranged from .579 to .775. The average six-member jury propensities ranged from .530 to .830. Id., at 971-972.

       Lempert 680.

       Accord, Zeisel 718; Note, Case W. Res. 547.

       Zeisel 720; accord, Lempert 676. But see Sales 89-90.

       Lempert 67-L677; Zeisel 719.

       Asch, Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments in Group Dynamics Research and Theory, 189, 195-197 (2d ed., 1960), cited in Lempert 673.

        Id., at 669, 677.

        Ibid.; Saks 90.

       Lempert 648-653; Nagel & Neef 934-937; Saks, Ignorance of Science Is No Excuse, supra n. 10, at 19; Zeisel & Diamond 283-291; Note, Case W. Res. 535.

       Lempert 648-653.

       Zeisel and Diamond have criticized one of the more important studies supporting smaller juries. See n. 34, infra. In Note, An Empirical Study of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 712 (1973), the author tested the deliberations of larger and smaller panels by showing to sets of both sizes the video tape of a single mock civil trial. The case concerned an automobile accident and turned on whether the plaintiff had been speeding. If so, Michigan law precluded recovery because of contributory negligence. Of the 16 juries tested, not one found for the plaintiff. This led Zeisel and Diamond to conclude: “The evidence in the case overwhelmingly favored the defendant .... This overpowering bias makes the experiment irrelevant. On the facts of this case, any jury under any rules would probably have arrived at the same verdict. Hence, to conclude from this experiment that jury size generally has no effect on the verdict is impermissible.” Zeisel & Diamond 287.
      See also Diamond, A Jury Experiment Reanalyzed, 7 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 520 (1974). The criticized study was cited and relied upon by the Court in Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 159 n. 15 (1973).

       See Note, Six-Member and Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study of Trial Results, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 671 (1973). This also was cited and relied upon in Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S., at 159 n. 15.

       Zeisel & Diamond 289-290. These authors also criticized the Michigan study because it ignored two other important changes that had occurred when the size of civil juries was decreased from 12 to 6 members: A mediation board, which encouraged settlements, had been introduced, and rules that permitted discovery of insurance policy limits had taken effect. See Saks 43.

       We do not rely on any First Amendment aspect of this case in holding the five-person jury unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the nature of the substance of the misdemeanor charges against petitioner supports the refusal to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors. The application of the community’s standards and common sense is important in obscenity trials where juries must define and apply local standards. See Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). The opportunity for harassment and overreaching by an overzealous prosecutor or a biased judge is at least as significant in an obscenity trial as in one concerning an armed robbery. This fact does not change merely because the obscenity charge may be labeled a misdemeanor and the robbery a felony.

       Note, Six-Member and Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study of Trial Results, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 671 (1973) (a statistical study of actual jury results), and Note, An Empirical Study of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, 6 TJ. Mich. J. L. Reform 712 (1973) (a laboratory experiment using a mock trial), were both criticized in Saks 43-46, and in Zeisel & Diamond 286-290. The second study was criticized in Diamond, A Jury Experiment Reanalyzed, 7 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 520 (1974). The Michigan studies were advanced by the State at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27.

       Saks 45.

        Id., at 43-44; Zeisel & Diamond 288-290.

       Davis, et al., supra n. 10, at 7, criticized in Saks 49-51.

       See New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Six-Member Juries (1971); Bogue & Fritz, The Six-Man Jury, 17 S. D. L. Rev. 285 (1972).

       It has been said that a reduction from 12 jurors to 6 throughout the federal system could save at least $4 million annually. Zeisel, Twelve is Just, 10 Trial 13 (Nov.-Dee. 1974). Another study calculated a saving in jury man-hours of 41.9% with the reduction to six members. Pabst, Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man versus Twelve-Man Juries, 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 326, 328 (1972).

        Id., at 327; Zeisel, Twelve is Just, supra. But see Institute of Judicial Administration, A Comparison of Six- and Twelve-Member Civil Juries in New Jersey Superior and County Courts 27-28 (1972); New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Six-Member Juries 3-4 (1971); Thompson, Six Will Do, 10 Trial 12,14 (Nov.-Dec. 1974).

       Pabst, supra, at 327-328.

       Virginia Code § 19.2-262 (2) (1975) permits juries of five in misdemeanor cases.

       Several States have provided for six-member juries for selected criminal cases. E. g., Colo. Rule Crim. Proe. 23 (1974); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 913.10 (West 1973); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.015 (1971); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 218, § 27A (West Supp. 1977). Other States provide for smaller juries upon stipulation of the parties. E. g., Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1901 (1977); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 194 (West 1954). The Federal Indian Civil Rights Act, § 202, 82 Stat. 77, 25 U. S. C. § 1302 (10), provides for a right of jury trial in certain cases before a jury of not less than six persons.

      The opinion of Mr. Justice Blackmun acknowledges, in disagreeing with other studies, that “methodological problems” may “mask differences in the operation of smaller and larger juries.” Ante, at 237. See also ante, at 242-243.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Powell

license: Public Domain

text:
    CAREY et al. v. PIPHUS et al.
    No. 76-1149.
    Argued December 6, 1977
    Decided March 21, 1978

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., concurred in the result. Blackmun, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Earl B. Hoffenberg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Michael J. Murray.

      John Elson argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was David Goldberg.

         Leon Fieldman filed a brief for the National School Boards Assn, as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Mr. Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, we consider the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages by students who were suspended from public elementary and secondary schools without procedural due process. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the students are entitled to recover substantial nonpunitive damages even if their suspensions were justified, and even if they do not prove that any other actual injury was caused by the denial of procedural due process. We disagree, and hold that in the absence of proof of actual injury, the students are entitled to recover only nominal damages.

I

Respondent Jarius Piphus was a freshman at Chicago Vocational High School during the 1973-1974 school year. On January 23, 1974, during school hours, the school principal saw Piphus and another student standing outdoors on school property passing back and forth what the principal described as an irregularly shaped cigarette. The principal approached the students unnoticed and smelled what he believed was the strong odor of burning marihuana. He also saw Piphus try to pass a packet of cigarette papers to the other student. When the students became aware of the principal’s presence, they threw the cigarette into a nearby hedge.

The principal took the students to the school’s disciplinary office and directed the assistant principal to impose the “usual” 20-day suspension for violation of the school rule against the use of drugs. The students protested that they had not been smoking marihuana, but to no avail. Piphus was allowed to remain at school, although not in class, for the remainder of the school day while the assistant principal tried, without success, to reach his mother.

A suspension notice was sent to Piphus’ mother, and a few days later two meetings were arranged among Piphus, his mother, his sister, school officials, and representatives from a legal aid clinic. The purpose of the meetings was not to determine whether Piphus had been smoking marihuana, but rather to explain the reasons for the suspension. Following an unfruitful exchange of views, Piphus and his mother, as guardian ad litem, filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U. S. C. § 1343, charging that Piphus had been suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, together with actual and punitive damages in the amount of $3,000. Piphus was readmitted to school under a temporary restraining order after eight days of his suspension.

Respondent Silas Brisco was in the sixth grade at Clara Barton Elementary School in Chicago during the 1973-1974 school year. On September 11, 1973, Brisco came to school wearing one small earring. The previous school year the school principal had issued a rule against the wearing of earrings by male students because he believed that this practice denoted membership in certain street gangs and increased the likelihood that gang members would terrorize other students. Brisco was reminded of this rule, but he refused to remove the earring, asserting that it was a symbol of black pride, not of gang membership.

The assistant principal talked to Brisco’s mother, advising her that her son would be suspended for 20 days if he did not remove the earring. Brisco’s mother supported her son’s position, and a 20-day suspension was imposed. Brisco and his mother, as guardian ad litem, filed suit in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343, charging that Brisco had been suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, together with actual and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Brisco was readmitted to school during the pendency of proceedings for a preliminary injunction after 17 days of his suspension.

Piphus’ and Brisco’s cases were consolidated for trial and submitted on stipulated records. The District Court held that both students had been suspended without procedural due process. It also held that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity from damages under the second branch of Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975), because they “should have known that a lengthy suspension without any adjudicative hearing of any type” would violate procedural due process. App. to Pet. for Cert. A14. Despite these holdings, the District Court declined to award damages because:

“Plaintiffs put no evidence in the record to quantify their damages, and the record is completely devoid of any evidence which could even form the basis of a speculative inference measuring the extent of their injuries. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages therefore fail for complete lack of proof.” Ibid.

The court also stated that the students were entitled to declaratory relief and to deletion of the suspensions from their school records, but for reasons that are not apparent the court failed to enter an order to that effect. Instead, it simply dismissed the complaints. No finding was made as to whether respondents would have been suspended if they had received procedural due process.

On respondents’ appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 545 F. 2d 30 (1976). It first held that the District Court erred in not granting declaratory and injunctive relief. It also held that the District Court should have considered evidence submitted by respondents after judgment that tended to prove the pecuniary value of each day of school that they missed while suspended. The court said, however, that respondents would not be entitled to recover damages representing the value of missed school time if petitioners showed on remand “that there was just cause for the suspension [s] and that therefore [respondents] would have been suspended even if a proper hearing had been held.” Id., at 32.

Finally, the Court of Appeals held that even if the District Court found on remand that respondents’ suspensions were justified, they would be entitled to recover substantial “non-punitive” damages simply because they had been denied procedural due process. Id., at 31. Relying on its earlier decision in Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F. 2d 569 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 963 (1976), the court stated that such damages should be awarded “even if, as in the case at bar, there is no proof of individualized injury to the plaintiff, such as mental distress . . . .” 545 F: 2d, at 31. We granted certiorari to consider whether, in an action under § 1983 for the deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove that he actually was injured by the deprivation before he may recover substantial “non-punitive” damages. 430 U. S. 964 (1977).

II

Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Rev. Stat. § 1979, derived from § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, provides:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

The legislative history of § 1983, elsewhere detailed, e. g., Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 172-183 (1961); id., at 225-234 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 238-242 (1972), demonstrates that it was intended to “[create] a species of tort liability” in favor of persons who are deprived of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured” to them by the Constitution. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976).

Petitioners contend that the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages under this “species of tort liability” should parallel those for recovery of damages under the common law of torts. In particular, they urge that the purpose of an award of damages under § 1983 should be to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights; and, further, that plaintiffs should be required to prove not only that their rights were violated, but also that injury was caused by the violation, in order to recover substantial damages. Unless respondents prove that they actually were injured by the deprivation of procedural due process, petitioners argue, they are entitled at most to nominal damages.

Respondents seem to make two different arguments in support of the holding below. First, they contend that substantial damages should be awarded under § 1983 for the deprivation of a constitutional right whether or not any injury was caused by the deprivation. This, they say, is appropriate both because constitutional rights are valuable in and of themselves, and because of the need to deter violations of constitutional rights. Respondents believe that this view reflects accurately that of the Congress that enacted § 1983. Second, respondents argue that even if the purpose of a § 1983 damages award is, as petitioners contend, primarily to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights, every deprivation of procedural due process may be presumed to cause some injury. This presumption, they say, should relieve them from the necessity of proving that injury actually was caused.

A

Insofar as petitioners contend that the basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award should be to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights, they have the better of the argument. Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests, and their contours are shaped by the interests they protect.

Our legal system’s concept of damages reflects this view of legal rights. “The cardinal principle of damages in Anglo-American law is that of compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.” 2 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts §25.1, p. 1299 (1956) (emphasis in original). The Court implicitly has recognized the applicability of this principle to actions under § 1983 by stating that damages are available under that section for actions “found ... to have been violative of . . . constitutional rights and to have caused compensable-injury . . . .” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 319 (emphasis supplied); see C-odd v. Velger, 429 U. S. 624, 630-631 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 232 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397 (1971) (action for damages directly under Fourth Amendment); id., at 408-409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). The lower federal courts appear generally to agree that damages awards under § 1983 should be determined by the compensation principle.

The Members of the Congress that enacted § 1983 did not address directly the question of damages, but the principle that damages are designed to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of rights hardly could have been foreign to the many lawyers in Congress in 1871. Two other sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 appear to incorporate this principle, and no reason suggests itself for reading § 1983 differently. To the extent that Congress intended that awards under § 1983 should deter the deprivation of constitutional rights, there is no evidence that it meant to establish a deterrent more formidable than that inherent in the award of compensatory damages. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., at 442 (White, J., concurring in judgment).

B

It is less difficult to conclude that damages awards under § 1983 should be governed by the principle of compensation than it is to apply this principle to concrete cases. But over the centuries the common law of torts has developed a set of rules to implement the principle that a person should be compensated fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights. These rules, defining the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery, provide the appropriate starting point for the inquiry under § 1983 as well.

It is not clear, however, that common-law tort rules of damages will provide a complete solution to the damages issue in every § 1983 case. In some cases, the interests protected by a particular branch of the common law of torts may parallel closely the interests protected by a particular constitutional right. In such cases, it may be appropriate to apply the tort rules of damages directly to the § 1983 action. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S., at 231-232 (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting). In other cases, the interests protected by a particular constitutional right may not also be protected by an analogous branch of the common law of torts. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S., at 196, and n. 5 (Harlan, J., concurring) id., at 250-251 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, at 232 (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotic Agents, 403 U. S., at 394; id., at 408-409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). In those cases, the task will be the more difficult one of adapting common-law rules of damages to provide fair compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right.

Although this task of adaptation will be one of some delicacy — as this case demonstrates — it must be undertaken. The purpose of § 1983 would be defeated if injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights went uncompensated simply because the common law does not recognize an analogous cause of action. Cf. Jones v. Hildebrant, 432 U. S. 183, 190-191 (1977) (White, J., dissenting); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 240 (1969). In order to further the purpose of § 1983, the rules governing compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights should be tailored to the interests protected by the particular right in question — just as the common-law rules of damages themselves were defined by the interests protected in the various branches of tort law. We agree with Mr. Justice Harlan that “the experience of judges in dealing with private [tort] claims supports the conclusion that courts of law are capable of making the types of judgment concerning causation and magnitude of injury necessary to accord meaningful compensation for invasion of [constitutional] rights.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, supra, at 409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the problem of compensation in the case at hand.

C

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”

This Clause “raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a person’s possessions,” or liberty, or life. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 81 (1972). Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Thus, in deciding what process constitutionally is due in various contexts, the Court repeatedly has emphasized that “procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process . . . .” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 344 (1976). Such rules “minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of” life, liberty, or property by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. Shevin, supra, at 81.

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that if petitioners can prove on remand that “[respondents] would have been suspended even if a proper hearing had been held,” 545 F. 2d, at 32, then respondents will not be entitled to recover damages to compensate them for injuries caused by the suspensions. The court thought that in such a case, the failure to accord procedural due process could not properly be viewed as the cause of the suspensions. Ibid.; cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 285-287 (1977); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 270-271, n. 21 (1977). The court suggested that in such circumstances, an award of damages for injuries caused by the suspensions would constitute a windfall, rather than compensation, to respondents. 545 F. 2d, at 32, citing Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F. 2d, at 579; cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, supra, at 285-286. We do not understand the parties to disagree with this conclusion. Nor do we.

The parties do disagree as to the further holding of the Court of Appeals that respondents are entitled to recover substantial — although unspecified — damages to compensate them for “the injury which is 'inherent in the nature of the wrong'” 545 F. 2d, at 31, even if their suspensions were justified and even if they fail to prove that the denial of procedural due process actually caused them some real, if intangible, injury. Respondents, elaborating on this theme, submit that the holding is correct because injury fairly may be “presumed” to flow from every denial of procedural due process. Their argument is that in addition to protecting against unjustified deprivations, the Due Process Clause also guarantees the “feeling of just treatment” by the government. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 162 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). They contend that the deprivation of protected interests without procedural due process, even where the premise for the deprivation is not erroneous, inevitably arouses strong feelings of mental and emotional distress in the individual who is denied this “feeling of just treatment.” They analogize their case to that of defamation per se, in which “the plaintiff is relieved from the necessity of producing any proof whatsoever that he has been injured” in order to recover substantial compensatory damages. C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 116, p. 423 (1935).

Petitioners do not deny that a purpose of procedural due process is to convey to the individual a feeling that the government has dealt with him fairly, as well as to minimize the risk of mistaken deprivations of protected interests. They go so far as to concede that, in a proper case, persons in respondents' position might well recover damages for mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process. . Petitioners' argument ■ is the more limited one that such injury cannot be presumed to occur, and that plaintiffs at least should be put to their proof on the issue, as plaintiffs are in most tort actions.

We agree with petitioners in this respect. As we have observed in another context, the doctrine of presumed damages in the common law of defamation per se “is an oddity of tort law, for it allows recovery of purportedly compensatory damages without evidence of actual loss.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 349 (1974). The doctrine has been defended on the grounds that those forms of defamation that are actionable per se are virtually certain to cause serious injury to reputation, and that this kind of injury is extremely difficult to prove. See id., at 373, 376 (White, J., dissenting). Moreover, statements that are defamatory per se by their very nature are likely to cause mental and emotional distress, as well as injury to reputation, so there arguably is little reason to require proof of this kind of injury either. But these considerations do not support respondents’ contention that damages should be presumed to flow from every deprivation of procedural due process.

First, it is not reasonable to assume that every departure from procedural due process, no matter what the circumstances or how minor, inherently is as likely to cause distress as the publication of defamation per se is to cause injury to reputation and distress. Where the deprivation of a protected interest is substantively justified but procedures are deficient in some respect, there may well be those who suffer no distress over the procedural irregularities. Indeed, in contrast to the immediately distressing effect of defamation per se, a person may not even know that procedures were deficient until he enlists the aid of counsel to challenge a perceived substantive deprivation.

Moreover, where a deprivation is justified but procedures are deficient, whatever distress a person feels may be attributable to the justified deprivation rather than to deficiencies in procedure. But as the Court of Appeals held, the injury caused by a justified deprivation, including distress, is not properly compensable under § 1983. This ambiguity in causation, which is absent in the case of defamation per se, provides additional need for requiring the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact that he actually suffered distress because of the denial of procedural due process itelf.

Finally, we foresee no particular difficulty in producing evidence that mental and emotional distress actually was caused by the denial of procedural due process itself. Distress is a personal injury familiar to the law, customarily proved by showing the nature and circumstances of the wrong and its effect on the plaintiff. In sum, then, although mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process itself is compensable under § 1983, we hold that neither the likelihood of such injury nor the difficulty of proving it is so great as to justify awarding compensatory damages without proof that such injury actually was caused.

D

The Court of Appeals believed, and respondents urge, that cases dealing with awards of damages for racial discrimination, the denial of voting rights, and the denial of Fourth Amendment rights support a presumption of damages where procedural due process is denied. Many of the cases relied upon do not help respondents because they held or implied that some actual, if intangible, injury must be proved before compensatory damages may be recovered. Others simply did not address the issue. More importantly, the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of one constitutional right are not necessarily appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of another. As we have said, supra, at 258-259, these issues must be considered with reference to the nature of the interests protected by the particular constitutional right in question. For this reason, and without intimating an opinion as to their merits, we do- not deem the cases relied upon to be controlling.

Ill

Even if respondents’ suspensions were justified, and even if they did not suffer any other actual injury, the fact remains that they were deprived of their right to procedural due process. “It is enough to invoke the procedural safeguards of the Fourteenth Amendment that a significant property interest is at stake, whatever the ultimate outcome of a hearing . . . .” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S., at 87; see Codd v. Velger, 429 U. S., at 632 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 424 (1915).

Common-law courts traditionally have vindicated deprivations of certain “absolute” rights that are not shown to have caused actual injury through the award of a nominal sum of money. By making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed; but at the same time, it remains true to the principle that substantial damages should be awarded only to compensate actual injury or, in the case of exemplary or punitive damages, to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.

Because the right to procedural due process is “absolute” in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant’s substantive assertions, and because of the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, see Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 375 (1971) ; Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S., at 171-172 (Frankfurter, J., concurring), we believe that the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury. We therefore hold that if, upon remand, the District Court determines that respondents’ suspensions were justified, respondents nevertheless will be entitled to recover nominal damages not to exceed one dollar from petitioners.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

       At the time of the suspensions, the Board of Education’s general rule governing suspensions provided:
      “For gross disobedience or misconduct a pupil may be suspended temporarily by the principal for a period not exceeding one school month for each offense. Each such suspension shall be reported immediately to the District Superintendent and also to the parent or guardian of the pupil, with a full statement of the reasons for such suspension. The District Superintendent shall have authority to review the action of the principal and to return the suspended pupil.” Rule 6-9 of the Rules of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago (1973), quoted in District Court opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. A9.
      The District Court held that the terms “gross disobedience” and “misconduct” in this general rule are not unconstitutionally vague because they were narrowed by the school principals’ issuance of the particular rules allegedly violated here. Id., at A9-A10. Rule 6-9 was amended following this Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975). See App. to Pet. for Cert. A10-A11, n. 3.

       The complaint named as defendants, individually and in their official capacities, the principal of the school; the General Superintendent of Schools of the city of Chicago; and the members of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago.

       Also- named as plaintiff in Brisco's suit was People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), a religious corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, the membership of which includes parents of children in the Chicago public schools. The District Court held that PUSH had standing to maintain this suit, a ruling not challenged on appeal.
      In addition to the procedural due process claim, Brisco's, complaint alleged that enforcement of the “no-earring” rule violated his right to freedom of expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Neither court below passed on this claim, nor do we.

       The complaint named as defendants, individually and in their official capacities, the principal of the school; the General Superintendent of Schools of the city of Chicago; the members of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago; and the Illinois Superintendent of Public Instruction. The District Court granted the latter party’s motion to dismiss.

       The District Court read Goss v. Lopez, supra, as requiring “more formal procedures” for suspensions of more than 10 days than for suspensions of less than 10 days, and it set forth a detailed list of procedural requirements. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A11-A12. Petitioners have not challenged either the holding that respondents were denied procedural due process, or the listing of rights that must be granted.

       Although respondents’ suspensions occurred before Goss v. Lopez was decided, the District Court thought that petitioners' should have been placed on notice that the suspensions violated procedural due process by Linwood v. Board of Ed. of City of Peoria, 463 F. 2d 763 (CA7), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1027 (1972). Petitioners have not challenged this holding.
      The District Court expressly held that petitioners did not lose their immunity under the first branch of Wood v. Strickland, i. e., that they did not act “with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student,” 420 U. S., at 322:
      “Here the record is barren of evidence suggesting that any of the defendants acted maliciously in enforcing disciplinary policies against the plaintiffs. Undoubtedly defendants believed that they were protecting the integrity of the educational process.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A13.

       See also D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.1, pp. 135-138 (1973); C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 1 (1935); W. Prosser, Law of Torts §2, p. 7 (4th ed. 1971).

       See, e. g., United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 535 F. 2d 823, 829-830, and n. 13 (CA3 1976); United States ex rel. Larkins v. Oswald, 510 F. 2d 583, 590 (CA2 1975); Magnett v. Pelletier, 488 F. 2d 33, 35 (CA1 1973); Stolberg v. Members of Bd. of Trustees for State Colleges of Conn., 474 F. 2d 485, 488-489 (CA2 1973); Donovan v. Reinbold, 433 F. 2d 738, 743 (CA9 1970).

       See 1 F. Hilliard, Law of Torts, ch. 3, § 5 (3d ed. 1866); T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages 25-35 (5th ed. 1869). Thus, one proponent of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 asked during debate: “[W]hat legislation could be more appropriate than to give a person injured by another under color of . . . State laws a remedy by civil action?” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 482 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Wilson). And one opponent of § 1 complained: “The deprivation may be of the slightest conceivable character, the damages in the estimation of any sensible man may not be five dollars or even five cents; they may be what lawyers call merely nominal damages; and yet by this section jurisdiction of that civil action is given to the Federal courts instead of its being prosecuted as now in the courts of the States.” Id,., at App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman). See also Nahmod, Section 1983 and the “Background” of Tort Liability, 50 Ind. L. J. 5,10 (1974).

       Section 2 of the Act, 17 Stat. 13-14, now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1985 (3), made it unlawful to conspire, inter alia, “for the purpose of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws . . . .” It further provided (emphasis supplied):
      “[I]f any one or more persons engaged in any such conspiracy shall do', or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby any person shall be injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the person so injured or deprived of such rights and privileges may have and maintain an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation of rights and privileges against any one or more of the persons engaged in such conspiracy . . . .”
      Section 6 of the Act, 17 Stat. 15, now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1986, provided (emphasis supplied):
      “[A]ny person or persons, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in the second section of this act are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, shall neglect or refuse to do so, and such wrongful act shall be committed, such person or persons shall be liable to the person injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by any such wrongful act. ...”

       This is not to say that exemplary or punitive damages might not be awarded in a proper case under § 1983 with the specific purpose of deterring or punishing violations of constitutional rights. See, e. g., Silver v. Cormier, 529 F. 2d 161, 163-164 (CA10 1976); Stengel v. Belcher, 522 F. 2d 438, 444 n. 4 (CA6 1975), cert. dismissed, 429 U. S. 118 (1976); Spence v. Staras, 507 F. 2d 554, 558 (CA7 1974); Caperci v. Huntoon, 397 F. 2d 799, 801 (CA1), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 940 (1968); Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F. 2d 573, 576 (CA5 1967); Basista v. Weir, 340 F. 2d 74, 84-88 (CA3 1965). Although we imply no approval or disapproval of any of these cases, we note that there is no basis for such an award in this case. The District Court specifically found that petitioners did not act with a malicious intention to deprive respondents of their rights or to do them other injury, see n. 6, supra, and the Court of Appeals approved only the award of “non-punitive” damages, 545 F. 2d 30, 31 (1976).
      We also note that the potential liability of § 1983 defendants for attorney’s fees, see Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, amending 42 U. S. C. § 1988, provides additional— and by no means inconsequential — assurance that agents of the State will not deliberately ignore due process rights. See also 18 U. S. C. § 242, the criminal counterpart of § 1983.

       For discussions of the problems of fashioning damages awards under § 1983, see generally McCormack, Federalism and Section 1983: Limitations on Judicial Enforcement of Constitutional Protections, Part 1, 60 Va. L. Rev. 1, 55-66 (1974); Nahmod, supra n. 9, at 25-27, n. 89; Yudof, Liability for Constitutional Torts and the Risk-Averse Public School Official, 49 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1322, 1366-1383 (1976); Comment, Civil Actions for Damages under the Federal Civil Rights Statutes, 45 Texas L. Rev; 1015, 1023-1035 (1967).

       The Court has looked to the common law of torts in similar fashion in constructing immunities under § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417-419 (1976), and cases there discussed. Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 authorizes courts to look to the common law of the States where this is "necessary to furnish suitable remedies” under § 1983.

       See, e. g., Dixon v. Love, 431 U. S. 105, 112-114 (1977); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 675, 677-678, 682 (1977); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 170 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in part and in result in part) ; id., at 201 (White, J., concurring and dissenting); id., at 214-215 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 609-610, 618 (1974); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 266 (1970).

       A few courts appear to have taken a contrary view in cases where public employees holding property interests in their jobs were discharged with cause but without procedural due process. E. g., Thomas v. Ward, 529 F. 2d 916, 920 (CA4 1975); Zimmerer v. Spencer, 485 F. 2d 176, 178-179 (CA5 1973); Horton v. Orange County Bd. of Ed., 464 F. 2d 536, 537-538 (CA4 1972). See also Burt v. Board of Trustees of Edgefield County School Dist., 521 F. 2d 1201, 1207-1208 (CA4 1975) (opinion of Winter, J.).

       Respondents also contend that injury should be presumed because, even if they were guilty of the conduct charged, they were deprived of the chance to present facts or arguments in, mitigation to the initial decisionmaker. Cf. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, 784^-785 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 479-480, 488 (1972). They claim that “[i]t can never be known . . . what, if anything, the exercise of such an opportunity to plead one’s cause on judgmental or discretionary grounds would have availed.” Brief for Respondents 28. But, as previously indicated, the Court of Appeals held that respondents cannot recover damages for injuries caused by their suspensions if the District Court determines that “[respondents] would have been suspended even if a proper hearing had been held.” 545 F. 2d, at 32. This holding, which respondents do not challenge, necessarily assumes that the District Court can determine what the outcome would have been if respondents had received their hearing. We presume that this determination will include consideration of the likelihood that any mitigating circumstances to which respondents can point would have swayed the initial decisionmakers.

       “By the very nature of harm resulting from defamatory publications, it is frequently not susceptible of objective proof. Libel and slander work their evil in ways that are invidious and subtle.” 1 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts § 5.30, p. 468 (1956); see also Restatement of Torts § 621, comment a, p. 314 (1938).

       The essence of libel per se is the publication in writing of false statements that tend to injure a person’s reputation. The essence of slander per se is the publication by spoken words of false statements imputing to a person a criminal offense; a loathsome disease; matter affecting adversely a person’s fitness for trade, business, or profession; or serious sexual misconduct. 1 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts §§ 5.9-5.13 (1956); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 559, 569-574 (1977); W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 112 (4th ed. 1971).

       In this case, for example, respondents denied the allegations against them. They may well have been distressed that their denials were not believed. They might have been equally distressed if they had been, disbelieved only after a full-dress hearing, but in that instance they would have no cause of action against petitioners.

       We use the term “distress” to include mental suffering or emotional anguish. Although essentially subjective, genuine injury in this respect may be evidenced by one’s conduct and observed by others. Juries must be guided by appropriate instructions, and an award of damages must be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 350 (1974).

       See cases cited in Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F. 2d 569, 579 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 963 (1976).

       In Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F. 2d 1119 (CA7 1974), and Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., 491 F. 2d 634 (CA7 1974), cited in Hostrop, supra, at 579, the court held that damages may be awarded for humiliation and distress caused by discriminatory refusals to lease housing to plaintiffs. The court’s comment in Seaton that “ [h] umiliation can. be inferred from the circumstances as well as established by the testimony,” 491 F. 2d, at 636, suggests that the court considered the question of actual injury to be one of fact. See generally Annot., Recovery of Damages for Emotional Distress Resulting from Racial, Ethnic, or Religious Abuse or Discrimination,. 40 A. L. R. 3d 1290 (1971).
      In Basista v. Weir, 340 F. 2d 74 (CA3 1965); Sexton v. Gibbs, 327 F. Supp. 134 (ND Tex. 1970), aff’d, 446 F. 2d 904 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1062 (1972); and Rhoads v. Horvat, 270 F. Supp. 307 (Colo. 1967), cited in Hostrop, supra, at 579, the courts indicated that damages may be awarded for humiliation and distress caused by unlawful arrests, searches, and seizures. In Basista v. Weir, the court held that nominal damages could be awarded for an illegal arrest even if compensatory damages were waived; and that such nominal damages would, in an appropriate case, support an award of punitive damages. 340 F. 2d, at 87-88. Because it was unclear whether the plaintiff had waived his claim for compensatory damages, that issue was left open upon remand. Id., at 88. In Sexton v. Gibbs, where the court found “that Plaintiff suffered humiliation, embarrassment and discomfort,” substantial compensatory damages were awarded. 327 F. Supp., at 143. In Rhoads v. Horvat, the court allowed a jury award of $5,000 in compensatory damages for an illegal arrest to stand, stating that it did “not doubt that the plaintiff was outraged by the arrest.” 270 F. Supp., at 311.

        Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64 (CA8 1919), cited in Hostrop, supra, at 579, and Ashby v. White, 1 Bro. P. C. 62, 1 Eng. Rep. 417 (H. L. 1703), rev’g 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 92 Eng. Rep. 126 (K. B. 1703), do appear to support the award of substantial damages simply upon a showing that a plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of the right to vote. Citing Ashby v. White, this Court has held that actions for damages may be maintained for wrongful deprivations of the right to vote, but it has not considered the prerequisites for recovery. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 540 (1927); see also Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 469 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368 (1915); Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475 (1903); Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 (1902); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 (1900). The common-law rule of damages for wrongful deprivations of voting rights embodied in Ashby v. White would, of course, be quite relevant to the analogous question under § 1983.

         See D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §3.8, pp. 191-193 (1973); C. McCormick, Law of Damages §§ 20-22 (1935); Restatement of Torts §907 (1939).

       A number of lower federal courts have approved the award of nominal damages under § 1983 where deprivations of constitutional rights are not shown to have caused actual injury. E. g., Thompson v. Burke, 556 F. 2d 231, 240 (CA3 1977); United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 535 F. 2d, at 829-830; Magnett v. Pelletier, 488 F. 2d 33, 35 (CA1 1973); Basista v. Weir, 340 F. 2d, at 87; Bell v. Gayle, 384 F. Supp. 1022, 1026-1027 (ND Tex. 1974); United States ex rel. Myers v. Sielaff, 381 F. Supp. 840, 844 (ED Pa. 1974); Berry v. Macon County Bd. of Ed., 380 F. Supp. 1244, 1248 (MD Ala. 1971).

       Respondents contend that the Court of Appeals’ holding could be affirmed on the ground that the District Court held them to too high a standard of proof of the amount of damages appropriate to compensate intangible injuries that are proved to have been suffered. Brief for Respondents 49-52. It is true that plaintiffs ordinarily are not required to prove with exactitude the amount of damages that should be awarded to compensate intangible injury. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S., at 350. But, as the Court of Appeals said, “in the case at bar, there is no proof of individualized injury to [respondents], such as mental distress . . . .” 545 F. 2d, at 31. With the case in this posture, there is no occasion to consider the quantum of proof required to support a particular damages award where actual injury is proved.