Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 31 (1992)

Page:   Index   Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31

Cite as: 503 U. S. 347 (1992)

Blackmun, J., dissenting

III

In sum, the Court has failed, without explanation, to apply the framework our precedents have consistently deemed applicable; it has sought to support its conclusion by resurrecting arguments decisively rejected less than two years ago in Wilder; and it has contravened 22 years of precedent by suggesting that the existence of other "enforcement mechanisms" precludes § 1983 enforcement. At least for this case, it has changed the rules of the game without offering even minimal justification, and it has failed even to acknowledge that it is doing anything more extraordinary than "interpret-[ing]" the Adoption Act "by its own terms." Ante, at 358, n. 8. Readers of the Court's opinion will not be misled by this hollow assurance. And, after all, we are dealing here with children. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.5 I dissent.

377

5 Since I conclude that respondents have a cause of action under § 1983, I need not reach the question, decided in the affirmative by the Court of Appeals, whether petitioners may pursue a private action arising directly under the Adoption Act.

Page:   Index   Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31

Last modified: October 4, 2007