USA Foreclosure Wiki

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks (1978)

3 min read

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks (1978)

Citation: 436 U.S. 149 · Court: Supreme Court of the United States · Decided: May 15, 1978 (argued January 18, 1978) · Opinion: Rehnquist, J., for the Court (joined by Burger, C.J., and Stewart, Blackmun and Powell, JJ.); Marshall, J., dissenting; Stevens, J. (joined by White and Marshall, JJ.), dissenting; Brennan, J., took no part.

Facts

After Shirley Brooks and her family were evicted, their belongings were placed with Flagg Brothers, a storage company. Flagg Brothers threatened to sell the goods under New York UCC § 7-210, which lets a warehouseman who complies with the statute enforce its lien by sale. Brooks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the sale would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The District Court dismissed; the Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that New York had delegated to the warehouseman a function “traditionally associated with sovereignty.”

Holding

“A warehouseman’s proposed sale of goods entrusted to him for storage, as permitted by § 7-210, is not ‘state action,’” so no § 1983 claim was stated against the storage company or the State. (Syllabus.) The Court stated the issue as “whether Flagg Brothers’ action may fairly be attributed to the State of New York. We conclude that it may not.”

Reasoning

  • No public official participated in the proposed sale, which distinguished creditor-remedy cases such as Fuentes v. Shevin and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. (Syllabus (a)).
  • Settling debtor-creditor disputes is not an exclusive sovereign prerogative; other remedies remained available, so the “sovereign function” cases did not apply: “We conclude that our sovereign function cases do not support a finding of state action here.”
  • A State’s mere authorization or acquiescence in a private self-help remedy does not convert it into state action.

Practical impact

The holding concerns the proposed private warehouse sale on this record, without a public official participating in that proposed sale. It does not adjudicate every garage, police-assisted tow, self-storage or officer sale. State constitutional analysis can differ: the full Baskin v. Mabco Transit opinion (176 A.D.3d 1539, 2019), retrieved 2026-10-17, applies Flagg but separately recognizes New York’s broader, flexible state-action test. It found adequate notice on its particular storage-sale record, not that private status alone defeats every New York constitutional claim.

Statutory lien validity, sale compliance and purchaser title remain separate questions; this case does not replace those state-law protections. See new-york and california for distinct statutory and constitutional limits.

Good-law status

The full official opinion and identified later Baskin application were read. Comprehensive later treatment remains needs_verification; full-text acquisition and one later application are not a citator clearance.

Applies in →

All jurisdictions (federal constitutional rule). See towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales, court-ordered-administrative-and-creditor-sales, due-process-notice, marina-and-storage-lien-sales-of-vessels.

Sources

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks