United States v. Town of Colorado City, 935 F.3d 804

Background

The United States sued Colorado City (AZ) and Hildale (UT) under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 alleging the towns functioned as arms of the FLDS Church and engaged in a pattern or practice of constitutional violations (Establishment, Fourth, and Equal Protection claims).
Evidence at a 44‑day trial showed FLDS leaders selected town officials and marshals, instructed officials to act to advance Church interests, and marshals selectively enforced laws favoring FLDS members.
Marshals provided material support to Church security, aided Warren Jeffs (including helping him evade FBI arrest and destroy evidence), and engaged in discriminatory policing against non‑FLDS residents.
A jury returned an advisory verdict finding liability; the district court entered judgment finding a pattern or practice of constitutional violations and ordered injunctive relief with a court monitor.
Colorado City appealed, arguing (1) § 12601 requires an official municipal policy (Monell rule), (2) factual findings related to Fourth Amendment claims were flawed, and (3) the court wrongly admitted FLDS leaders’ statements as co‑conspirator hearsay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Colorado City)	Held
Proper interpretation of § 12601 (respondeat superior vs. Monell rule)	§12601 imposes municipal liability for patterns of constitutional violations by government agents without need to show an official municipal policy	§12601 requires proof of an official municipal policy or custom (Monell) to hold the town liable	§12601 allows liability based on general agency/respondeat superior principles; Monell limitation does not apply
Use of legislative history to construe §12601	Statutory text controls; legislative history is sparse and not dispositive	Legislative history (PAA predecessor) shows intent to target systemic police misconduct, implying a policy/custom requirement	Court declines to rely on scant/ambiguous legislative history; text supports respondeat superior liability
Alleged errors in district court factual findings (Fourth Amendment)	Findings that a pattern existed across First, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments suffice for relief	District court included legal conclusions, adopted government proposals, and made summary findings in violation of Rule 52(a)	Any error was harmless because finding of violation on other constitutional grounds supports relief; no relief warranted
Admission of FLDS leaders’ out‑of‑court statements	Statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as co‑conspirator statements and otherwise admissible (non‑hearsay, effect on listener, business records)	Statements were hearsay; district court erred in finding a conspiracy and in applying the co‑conspirator exception	District court did not clearly err in finding a conspiracy; many statements properly admitted under co‑conspirator exception or other hearsay exceptions; any erroneous admissions were harmless given overwhelming independent evidence

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1988) (general rule of respondeat superior in civil rights contexts unless statute indicates otherwise)
Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (respondeat superior applied under Title II of the ADA)
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (co‑conspirator statement exception to hearsay)
Miranda‑Uriarte, 649 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (court may consider all independent evidence when assessing coconspirator foundation for Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (discussing limits on municipal liability under § 1983 in failure‑to‑train context)
Ashland v. Ling‑Temco‑Vought, Inc., 711 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1983) (bench trial review when advisory jury verdict only)
County of Maricopa v. United States, 889 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2018) (comparison of § 12601 and § 1983 language and scope)