In Allen v. McCurry (1980), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies to federal civil rights lawsuits brought under Section 1983. If a state court has already given a party a full and fair opportunity to argue a constitutional issue, a federal court generally cannot revisit that ruling in a later civil suit.1Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Police searched Willie McCurry’s home after a shootout. At his state criminal trial, McCurry moved to suppress evidence he said had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The state court held a suppression hearing, excluded some of the evidence, and allowed the rest. McCurry was convicted.1Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90
He then sued the officers in federal court under Section 1983, seeking damages for the same alleged illegal search the state judge had already ruled on. The question for the Supreme Court was whether he could relitigate the search in federal court after losing that argument in state court.1Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90
Two Federal Statutes in Tension
Section 1983 lets a person sue anyone acting under state authority who deprives them of a federal right. It was designed as a federal remedy for state-sponsored violations of constitutional protections.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Full Faith and Credit Act pulls in the other direction. It requires federal courts to give state court judgments the same effect those judgments would carry in the state’s own courts. Before Allen v. McCurry, it was unsettled whether Section 1983 was strong enough to override that command and let a losing state-court litigant start over in federal court.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1738
What the Court Held
The Court ruled that Section 1983 does not displace the ordinary rules of issue preclusion. Nothing in the statute’s text or history showed that Congress meant to guarantee a second bite at the apple in federal court after a state court had already resolved the same question.1Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90
The practical consequence is direct. A criminal defendant who litigates a Fourth Amendment issue at a suppression hearing, and loses, generally cannot turn around and relitigate that same issue in a Section 1983 damages suit against the officers. The state ruling controls, provided the defendant had a full and fair chance to be heard.1Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90
The Dissent
The dissenting justices read Section 1983 differently. In their view, Congress enacted the law precisely because state courts of that era were often unwilling or unable to protect federal rights, and federal courts were meant to serve as the primary forum for testing constitutional claims against state officials.4Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 – Section: Dissent
Justice Blackmun added that a criminal defendant does not choose the state forum. The government drags them in. Because their appearance is involuntary, he argued, they should not forfeit the federal civil remedy Congress created for them.4Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 – Section: Dissent