or Even to Enforce the Law
Most Americans believe that the role of police is clear: to protect the public and enforce the law. Patrol cars display the words “To Protect and Serve,” and civic education often teaches that police are duty-bound to uphold justice. But in a series of rulings stretching back decades, courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, have made something startlingly clear: police officers are not legally required to protect individuals, nor are they required to enforce the law in any particular case.
This legal reality may seem impossible to reconcile with public expectations. Yet it reflects a long-standing principle about the limits of government obligation and the meaning of public duty under the Constitution.
The origins of the doctrine: DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)
The Supreme Court established the foundation for this principle in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989). In that case, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney was repeatedly abused by his father despite multiple reports to county social workers. The child’s mother sued, arguing that the government had failed to protect her son, violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
The Court ruled 6–3 that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause does not require the state to protect individuals from private acts of violence. The majority opinion stated:
“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”
This ruling established the principle that the government’s duty is largely negative (to refrain from violating rights) rather than affirmative, meaning it is not constitutionally obligated to act to protect someone.
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005): No obligation to enforce even a restraining order
The principle became even clearer in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). Jessica Gonzales had a valid restraining order against her estranged husband, who abducted and murdered their three children. She sued, claiming the police violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to enforce the order.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against her, holding that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of a restraining order. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority:
“A benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”
The Court determined that even mandatory-sounding statutes, such as those requiring police to make arrests in domestic-violence cases, do not create an enforceable individual right to police action. In other words, enforcement of the law is ultimately discretionary, not legally compulsory.
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): No duty to protect even after a 911 call
One of the most frequently cited lower-court cases on this topic is Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), decided by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Three women called 911 repeatedly while their home was being broken into and they were assaulted. The police never arrived in time, and the victims sued the District for failing to provide protection.
The court dismissed the suit, ruling that:
“The duty to provide public services, such as police protection, is owed to the public at large and not to any particular citizen.”
This case became the foundation for what is often called the “public duty doctrine,” which holds that law enforcement owes a general duty to the community as a whole, not to specific individuals.
Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973): No constitutional right to enforcement
In Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973), a Texas mother sought to compel prosecutors to pursue charges against the father of her child for failing to pay child support. The Supreme Court rejected her claim, ruling that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
That case set an important precedent: even if a law clearly applies, no individual has a constitutional right to have it enforced. The discretion to prosecute or enforce remains with the state, not with the citizen.
What these cases mean in practice
These rulings together create a sobering legal reality:
Police and prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding when, whether, and how to enforce the law.
The government cannot usually be held liable for failing to protect a person, failing to intervene in a crime, or even failing to enforce a restraining order or statute.
The duty of protection and enforcement runs to the public collectively, not to individuals.
This doctrine is not an accident; it is a structural feature of American constitutional law. The courts have reasoned that requiring police to guarantee protection or enforcement for every individual would create endless liability and paralyze the system.
The moral and civic tension
Yet this legal reasoning leaves an uncomfortable gap between what the law says and what citizens expect. People naturally assume that a government claiming to uphold public safety has a corresponding duty to act. The idea that law enforcement may choose not to intervene, and cannot be sued for it, feels like a betrayal of that social contract.
Philosophically, this raises deeper questions about the nature of law itself. If laws can exist without guaranteed enforcement, what gives them meaning? If the state claims the monopoly on legitimate force but bears no enforceable duty to protect, then the responsibility for safety ultimately shifts back to the citizen.
The path forward
Acknowledging this reality is not meant to sow distrust in law enforcement, but to encourage informed civic engagement. If citizens believe that police should have a stronger legal duty to protect or enforce, that change must come through legislation, not assumption.
Some states have considered creating “special duty” exceptions or statutory mandates for certain circumstances, such as domestic violence or active threats. Others focus on community-based models that emphasize prevention, accountability, and mutual aid.
But the first step is understanding the truth: the constitutional right to protection or enforcement does not currently exist. The law draws a clear line between moral expectation and legal obligation.
A society’s promise versus its practice
The motto “To Protect and Serve” is an ethical commitment, not a legal guarantee. The Supreme Court’s rulings have made that plain. While law enforcement officers often act heroically and risk their lives for others, they are not legally required to do so.
This divide between moral promise and legal reality should compel us to think critically about what kind of system we want. A just society cannot rely solely on assumptions of protection; it must build the laws, policies, and accountability mechanisms that make that protection real.
Until then, “To Protect and Serve” will remain a statement of aspiration and not legal obligation.