**757*789These consolidated cases arise from two separate incidents where plaintiffs were individually stopped and questioned by Grand Rapids Police Department (GRPD) officers. During these stops, plaintiffs' photographs and fingerprints were taken in accordance with the GRPD's "photograph and print" (P&P) procedures. Alleging that the P&Ps violated their constitutional rights, plaintiffs filed separate civil lawsuits in the Kent Circuit Court against the city of Grand Rapids (the City), as well as against the individual police officers involved. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of all defendants in both cases. Plaintiffs each appealed by right, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in separate opinions.1 Relevant to this appeal, both opinions affirmed summary disposition for the City on plaintiffs' municipal-liability claims on the basis that a policy that does not direct or require police officers to take a specific action cannot give rise to municipal liability under 42 USC 1983.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals and hold that a policy or custom that authorizes, but does not require, police officers to engage in specific conduct may form the basis for municipal liability. Additionally, when an officer engages in the specifically authorized conduct, the policy or custom itself is the moving force behind an alleged constitutional injury arising from the officer's actions. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and we remand these cases to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The P&Ps giving rise to these lawsuits took place during two separate incidents. At the time of the **758incidents, each GRPD patrol officer was assigned as a part of their standard equipment a camera, a fingerprinting kit, and GRPD "print cards" for storing an individual's copied fingerprints. Generally speaking, a P&P involved an officer's use of this equipment to take a person's photograph and fingerprints whenever an officer deemed the P&P necessary given the facts and circumstances. After a P&P was completed, the photographs were uploaded to a digital log. Completed print cards were collected and submitted to the Latent Print Unit. Latent print examiners then checked all the submitted fingerprints against the Kent County Correctional Facility database and the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. After being processed, the cards were filed and stored in a box according to their respective year.
The first incident giving rise to these lawsuits involved the field interrogation of plaintiff Denishio Johnson. On August 15, 2011, the GRPD received a tip that a young black male, later identified as Johnson, had been observed walking through an athletic club's parking lot and peering into vehicles. Officer Elliott Bargas responded to the tip and initiated contact with Johnson. Johnson, who had no identification, told Bargas that he was 15 years old, that he lived nearby, and that he used the parking lot as a shortcut. Bargas was skeptical of Johnson's story, and being aware of several prior thefts in and near *790the parking lot, he decided to perform a P&P to see if any witnesses or evidence would tie Johnson to those crimes. After Johnson's mother arrived and verified his name and age, Johnson was released. At some point during this process, Captain Curtis VanderKooi arrived and approved Bargas's actions. Johnson was never charged with a crime. **759The second event occurred on May 31, 2012, after VanderKooi observed Keyon Harrison, a young black male, walk up to another boy and hand him what VanderKooi believed was a large model train engine. Suspicious of the hand-off, VanderKooi followed Harrison to a park. After initiating contact, VanderKooi identified himself and questioned Harrison. Harrison, who had no identification, told VanderKooi that he had been returning the train engine, which he had used for a school project. VanderKooi, still suspicious, radioed in a request for another officer to come take Harrison's photograph. Sergeant Stephen LaBrecque arrived a short time later and performed a P&P on Harrison, despite being asked to take only a photograph. Harrison was released after his story was confirmed, and he was never charged with a crime.
Johnson and Harrison subsequently filed separate lawsuits in the Kent Circuit Court, and the cases were assigned to the same judge. Plaintiffs argued, in part, that the officers and the City were liable pursuant to 42 USC 1983 for violating plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when the officers performed P&Ps without probable cause, lawful authority, or lawful consent. Both plaintiffs also initially claimed that race was a factor in the officers' decisions to perform P&Ps, though Johnson later dropped that claim.
In two separate opinions, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the City pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10)2 and in favor of the officers pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (10), and (I)(2). Plaintiffs individually appealed by right in the Court of Appeals. In two **760separate opinions relying on the same legal analysis, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments regarding plaintiffs' municipal-liability claims.3 Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that the City could not be held liable because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any of the alleged constitutional violations resulted from a municipal policy or a custom so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law. Johnson , 319 Mich.App. at 626-628, 903 N.W.2d 843. The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the P&Ps actually violated either plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs filed a joint application for leave to appeal in this Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' ruling on the City's liability under 42 USC 1983. They argued that the record demonstrated that the City had a policy or custom of performing P&Ps without probable cause during investigatory *791stops pursuant to Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968),4 which may be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and that execution of that policy or custom violated their Fourth Amendment rights. We scheduled oral argument on the application and instructed the parties to address "whether any alleged violation of **761the plaintiffs' constitutional rights [was] the result of a policy or custom instituted or executed by the defendant City of Grand Rapids." Johnson v. VanderKooi , 501 Mich. 954, 954-955, 905 N.W.2d 233 (2018).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Maiden v. Rozwood , 461 Mich. 109, 118, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim. Id . at 120, 597 N.W.2d 817. When reviewing such a motion, "a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties ... in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Id . A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record "leave[s] open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ." Shallal v. Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co , 455 Mich. 604, 609, 566 N.W.2d 571 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
The issue presented is whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged violations of plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were caused by a policy or custom of the City. Plaintiffs' cause of action arises from 42 USC 1983, which provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
**762It is undisputed that a local municipality constitutes a "person" to which 42 USC 1983 applies. Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs of the City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Establishing municipal liability under 42 USC 1983 requires proof that: (1) a plaintiff's federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated and (2) the violation was caused by a policy or custom of the municipality. Id . For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the P&Ps performed by the GRPD officers and focus solely on the second prong of the analysis. Collins v. Harker Hts, Texas , 503 U.S. 115, 121-122, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed. 2d 261 (1992) (holding that whether a legal violation occurred and whether a municipality might be liable for that violation are separate legal inquiries).
A constitutional violation is attributable to a municipality if "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers."
*792Monell , 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Liability may also be based on a "governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels," id . at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, if the "relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law," Bd of the Co. Comm'rs of Bryan Co., Oklahoma v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed. 2d 626 (1997).5 However, **763liability may not be based on a respondeat superior theory. Id . at 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382 ; Jackson v. Detroit , 449 Mich. 420, 433, 537 N.W.2d 151 (1995). If the claim is premised on a municipal action that is itself alleged to be unlawful, such as the adoption of the policy at issue in Monell , no independent assessment of municipal culpability is necessary. Brown , 520 U.S. at 404-405, 117 S.Ct. 1382. If, however, a plaintiff does not claim "that the municipal action itself violated federal law, or directed or authorized the deprivation of federal rights," then it must be shown that the municipality acted with deliberate indifference to the obvious risk that the failure to take a different course of action would cause the specific kind of injury alleged. Id . at 406, 117 S.Ct. 1382 ; City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris , 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed. 2d 412 (1989). Under either theory of liability, a plaintiff must also establish "an affirmative link between the policy or custom and the particular constitutional violation alleged." Jackson , 449 Mich. at 433, 537 N.W.2d 151. Stated differently, the policy or custom must be the "moving force" behind the alleged constitutional violation. Id ., citing Monell , 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018.
Accordingly, to survive summary disposition, a plaintiff must first identify and connect a policy or custom to the municipality, and then point to facts in the record demonstrating that implementation or execution of that policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation.
A. MUNICIPAL POLICY OR CUSTOM
The first question is whether there existed a policy or custom that was attributable to the City. While the policy in Monell was memorialized in writing, this is not a prerequisite for a finding of municipal liability. An " 'official policy' often refers to formal rules or understandings-often but not always committed to **764writing -that are intended to, and do, establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and over time." Pembaur v. Cincinnati , 475 U.S. 469, 480-481, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed. 2d 452 (1986) (emphasis added). Governmental customs may also give rise to liability. A "permanent and well settled" practice of governmental officials or employees may "constitute a 'custom or usage' with the force of law." Monell , 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, quoting Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 168, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed. 2d 142 (1970). Thus, accepted, though unwritten, practices of executing governmental policy may give rise to liability for the purposes of Monell .6 *793The use of municipal resources to develop and implement practices and procedures can be evidence supporting the existence of an official policy. For example, in O'Brien v. Grand Rapids , 23 F.3d 990 (C.A. 6, 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that an official policy arose from the development of a critical incident response plan that was silent as to the need for search warrants during such incidents. The defendants had hired an outside expert as a consultant to train police staff and used the **765expert's philosophy and teachings to develop a procedure manual. Id . at 1002 (opinion by Joiner, J.).7 As a result, the defendants adopted into practice the notion that search warrants were unnecessary when responding to a critical incident. Id . The Sixth Circuit ruled that the commitment of money and personnel, coupled with the consistent conduct of the police officers in executing the practice, conclusively established the existence of an official policy that search warrants were unnecessary during critical incidents. Id . at 1003-1005.
We also believe that a municipality may be held liable for unlawful actions that it sanctioned or authorized, as well as for those that it specifically ordered. This conclusion is consistent with the controlling caselaw. In Pembaur , 475 U.S. at 471, 106 S.Ct. 1292, the question was whether a single verbal order from a prosecutor, who was vested with final decisionmaking authority, could constitute an official municipal policy. The Supreme Court observed that Monell had reasoned that "recovery from a municipality is limited to acts that are, properly speaking, acts 'of the municipality'-that is, acts which the municipality has officially sanctioned or ordered ." Id . at 480, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (emphasis added). Therefore, rather than focus on whether the prosecutor's order was a mandatory directive, the Supreme Court stressed in Pembaur that liability could arise from the unconstitutional conduct of an employee only if that conduct was tied to a decision of the municipality. Id . at 482-483, 106 S.Ct. 1292. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that liability attaches to a municipality only when "a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials **766responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question." Id . at 483-484, 106 S.Ct. 1292. Once a municipality deliberately adopts a course of action, it may be held liable for its employee's violation of the law arising from the execution of that course of action.
Ordering municipal employees to engage in specific unconstitutional conduct, as occurred in Pembaur and Monell , will clearly lead to a finding of liability. However, a municipality may also deliberately choose to authorize multiple courses of action. For example, a policy could state: if X, one must then do A, B, or C. Even if only one of those options constitutes unconstitutional conduct, municipal liability *794could still result, because the mere act of sanctioning or authorizing the unconstitutional option was a deliberate choice on the part of the municipality. Moreover, a policy need not be written in mandatory terms in order to conclude that a municipality has acted. A policy may be framed in permissive language: if X, one may then do A, B, or C. An employee pursuing any of these options would still be taking an action linked to a deliberate choice of the municipality, even if no single option was mandated.8
The Court of Appeals in this case concluded that a municipality may not be held liable unless its policy or **767custom specifically directed its employees to violate a person's constitutional rights. We disagree. Authorizing or sanctioning specific conduct is also a deliberate choice of a municipality that may give rise to liability. To hold otherwise would allow a municipality to escape liability merely by reframing an obligatory policy in permissive or discretionary terms. At a practical level, it would let municipalities avoid liability for the use of unconstitutional police tactics by adopting the tactics, but stating that they are not mandatory. This would elevate form over substance in a manner that would ignore the culpability attributable to a municipality as a result of its authorization of the tactics in the first instance. Cf. Monell , 436 U.S. at 691-692, 98 S.Ct. 2018. We do not believe that 42 USC 1983 and the controlling caselaw permit such a loophole. Accordingly, we hold that a policy or custom that authorizes municipal employees to perform their duties in a particular manner represents a deliberate decision of the municipality and an employee's performance of his or her duties in the manner authorized may be considered acts of the municipality.
B. CAUSATION
Once a municipal policy or custom has been identified, a plaintiff must then show that the policy or custom was also the "moving force" behind the action that gave rise to the alleged constitutional violation. Monell , 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. In other words, the policy or custom must be the cause of the violation. The causation element of claims made under 42 USC 1983 should generally "be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions." Monroe v. Pape , 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961), overruled **768in part on other grounds by Monell , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. Accordingly, "[t]raditional tort concepts of causation" inform our analysis. Powers v. Hamilton Co. Pub. Defender Comm. , 501 F.3d 592, 608 (C.A. 6, 2007).
As in a tort action, determining whether causation can be established requires a two-pronged inquiry. A plaintiff must show cause in fact and proximate causation, also known as legal causation.
*795Skinner v. Square D Co. , 445 Mich. 153, 162-163, 516 N.W.2d 475 (1994). The cause in fact element requires proof that " 'but for' the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred." Id . at 163, 516 N.W.2d 475. Determining proximate causation requires an examination of the foreseeability of consequences and of whether a defendant should be held legally responsible for the consequences of the defendant's conduct. Id . Thus, to establish a genuine issue of material fact, a plaintiff must point to facts from which a person could reasonably infer that the municipality's policy or custom was the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the alleged constitutional violation. See, e.g., Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc. , 698 F.3d 1128, 1146 (C.A. 9, 2012) ("Under Monell , a plaintiff must also show that the policy at issue was the 'actionable cause' of the constitutional violation, which requires showing both but for and proximate causation."), quoting Harper v. Los Angeles , 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (C.A. 9, 2008) ; Bielevicz v. Dubinon , 915 F.2d 845, 850 (C.A. 3, 1990) ("A plaintiff bears the additional burden of proving that the municipal practice was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered.").
Evidence "that the action taken or directed by the municipality or its authorized decisionmaker itself violates federal law" establishes that "the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury...." Brown , 520 U.S. at 405, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Stated differently, when an **769employee acts in accordance with a policy or custom that itself authorizes unconstitutional conduct, the policy or custom is the cause of the constitutional injury. It follows that a municipal employee's actions also flow directly from the municipality when those actions are carried out in the manner that the municipality has previously authorized. Accordingly, a municipal policy or custom is the cause in fact and proximate cause of a constitutional violation if the municipality authorizes , but does not necessarily require, the specific conduct that constitutes the violation and its employee acted pursuant to that authorization.9
Contrary to the Court of Appeals' holding, federal caselaw suggests that a policy or custom that gives municipal employees some discretion does not per se sever the causal link. For example, in Garner v. Memphis Police Dep't , 8 F.3d 358, 364 (C.A. 6, 1993), the **770defendants' deadly force policy did not require police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing suspects. However, the deadly force policy was still found to be the "moving force" behind an officer's actions when the officer had been taught that it was "proper to shoot a fleeing *796burglary suspect in order to prevent escape" and the officer had acted pursuant to that policy. Id . at 364-365. Similarly, in O'Brien , 23 F.3d at 1001, officers maintained the ultimate discretion to determine when a search warrant was necessary in a specific instance. However, when officers followed "the routine practice of not securing warrants during the management of critical incidents," it could be inferred that the policy giving rise to the practice was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. Id . at 1004 (opinion by Joiner, J.). In Chew v. Gates , 27 F.3d 1432, 1444 (C.A. 9, 1994), the defendants had a policy authorizing the use of dogs to find and seize all concealed suspects. The officer in Chew released a dog because the officer had been informed that he was authorized to do so under the circumstances. Id . at 1445. The officer's exercise of discretion in releasing the dog did not break the causal chain where city policy had authorized him to do so. Id . at 1446.
As previously stated, when a municipality has approved of specific discretionary employee conduct and an employee acts accordingly, those actions are attributable to the municipality. It follows that, when a policy or custom authorizes specific tactics and the municipality instructs its employees regarding the use of those tactics, then that policy or custom is the cause in fact of an employee's subsequent use of those tactics. And when the tactics themselves are illegal, subsequent violations of the law arising from an employee's use of the tactics are foreseeable and flow directly from the municipality's policy or custom. Accordingly, if a **771policy or custom authorizes the use of a specific tactic and a police officer acts in accordance with that authorization, then the policy or custom is the cause in fact and the proximate cause of a constitutional violation arising from the use of that tactic.
IV. APPLICATION
Turning to the cases before us, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the existence of a municipal policy or custom and with regard to causation.
A. MUNICIPAL POLICY OR CUSTOM
We begin by noting that the City conceded during oral arguments that there is a custom within the GRPD of performing P&Ps during field interrogations and stops. The City's briefs also contain numerous references to its "P&P Custom." On the basis of these concessions alone, we conclude that the City has a practice of performing P&Ps during field interrogations and stops and that the practice legally constitutes a governmental custom within the meaning of Monell . Additionally, the City's response to a request for admission described its P&P practices as follows:
... Defendant City admits that officers taking photos and thumbprints of individuals is a custom or practice of the City of Grand Rapids and has been for decades. The custom or practice has changed over those years with the evolution of technology. ... A photograph and print might be taken of an individual when the individual does not have identification on them and the officer is in the course of writing a civil infraction or appearance ticket. A photograph and print might be taken in the course of a field **772interrogation or a stop if appropriate based on the facts and circumstance of that incident . [Emphasis added.]
Facts admitted in response to a request for admission are "conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of an admission." MCR 2.312(D). It is also undisputed that *797GRPD officers are not required to make a probable cause determination before performing a P&P. Thus, the City's admission conclusively established both the existence and the City's knowledge of a longstanding "custom or practice" of performing P&Ps "in the course of a field interrogation or a stop if appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of that incident."
Even without the City's concessions, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, is sufficient for reasonable minds to differ as to the existence of an official policy authorizing the allegedly unconstitutional conduct. First, the GRPD's Officer Training Tasks manual indicates the existence of an official policy. The manual states that P&Ps are mandatory for the issuance of a citation for driving without a license or with a suspended license if the subject has no identification. Outside of the traffic citation context, the manual lists a P&P as something to be included in a field interrogation report and lists "[p]icture and print procedures" under the heading "TRAINING CONSIDERATIONS" without further explanation. Also in the record are slides from a GRPD training presentation showing a model field interrogation report, which includes a photograph and a fingerprint card, to record the results of a P&P. Other slides contain hypothetical examples where a P&P was performed on individuals that officers suspected of criminal activity, though the officers lacked enough information to support an arrest. This suggests that officers **773were specifically instructed that it was permissible to perform a P&P during field interrogations when there was not probable cause to make an arrest.
Deposition testimony further suggests the existence of an official policy. VanderKooi testified at his deposition that the P&P procedures have been in place since he joined the GRPD in 1980. When asked what GRPD policies authorize a P&P, VanderKooi explained that the GRPD's field interrogation procedures "state[ ] that you can take a P and P, meaning photograph and print, under circumstances where you're engaged in a contact or stop or detained somebody[;] ... it outlines the guidelines for taking pictures and prints, as well as writing police reports." He also testified that taking a person's fingerprints is "a common investigative tactic to either incriminate or eliminate" suspicion. In Johnson's case, Bargas testified that the P&P he performed was in accordance with GRPD policy. In Harrison's case, LaBrecque testified that he was called to the location specifically to perform a P&P, which he did, despite the fact that VanderKooi apparently requested only Harrison's photograph. The officers' testimony demonstrates that they treated the GRPD's P&P procedure as an official policy.
The existence of an official policy is additionally supported by the reasonable inference that public resources were used both to develop the training materials discussed earlier and also to train officers. The GRPD is the law enforcement branch of the City, and it is funded by tax revenue that the City allocates for law enforcement purposes. Thus, the GRPD's training materials regarding its P&P procedures were funded by money from the City's coffers. This is analogous to the use of municipal resources in O'Brien , 23 F.3d at 1005 (opinion by Joiner, J.), to hire an outside consultant, **774hold training sessions, and develop written manuals for a critical incident response plan. Although developing the P&P procedures may have required fewer resources than the response plan in O'Brien , the City nonetheless dedicated money and personnel to develop and implement the P&P procedure, and therefore, a reasonable person could infer that the City made a deliberate choice to authorize *798the use of P&Ps during field interrogations.
The evidence thus supports plaintiffs' theory that there was an official P&P policy, i.e., a "fixed plan[ ] of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and over time." Pembaur , 475 U.S. at 480-481, 106 S.Ct. 1292. That the City may not have outlined in its training materials what specific facts and circumstances justify performing a P&P does not preclude a juror from inferring that the custom has, over time, evolved into an official policy within the meaning of Monell . Therefore, even without the City's concession, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an official municipal policy.
B. CAUSATION
As the party opposing summary disposition, plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that reasonable minds could differ about whether the P&P policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged Fourth Amendment violations. Plaintiffs argued that performing a P&P without first making a probable cause determination violated their constitutional rights. According to plaintiffs, the City's policy is to authorize and train GRPD officers to perform a P&P without first establishing probable cause. In other words, plaintiffs allege that an affirmative municipal action, the execution of the alleged P&P policy, violates federal law. As **775stated in Brown , 520 U.S. at 405, 117 S.Ct. 1382, proof "that the action taken or directed by the municipality ... itself violates federal law will also determine that the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury" complained of. Thus, if the City's policy or custom is unconstitutional, Brown states that causation can be inferred.
The constitutionality of the City's policy or custom has yet to be determined. However, we find that the tort concepts of cause in fact and proximate causation demonstrate that the evidence permits a reasonable inference that the City's P&P policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged Fourth Amendment violations. First, the City appears to have conceded that the policy or custom was the cause in fact of any alleged constitutional violations.10 Additionally, circumstantial evidence indicates as much. See Skinner , 445 Mich. 164 ("[A] plaintiff's circumstantial proof must facilitate reasonable inferences of causation, not mere speculation."). Bargas agreed that when he performed a P&P on Johnson, it was in accordance with GRPD policies. VanderKooi testified that he wanted a P&P of Harrison to preserve Harrison's identity, which is a primary reason the P&P tactic is used during field interrogations. The training slides and the GRPD manual previously discussed indicate that officers were instructed to use P&Ps during field interrogations.
**776Additionally, the City has not argued that the officers in these cases were acting contrary to their training or GRPD policies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we think it more reasonable to infer that the officers performed the P&Ps in accordance with their prior training than to infer that the officers acted spontaneously. Thus, a reasonable person could infer that the City's P&P policy or custom was the *799cause in fact of the alleged Fourth Amendment violations.
Turning to proximate causation, we must consider whether the injury alleged was a foreseeable consequence of the City's policy or custom. See id . at 163, 516 N.W.2d 475. More specifically, was it reasonably foreseeable that performing a P&P in accordance with the alleged policy or custom would result in a Fourth Amendment violation? We have no difficulty concluding that the answer is yes.
No party has argued that the officers here did anything other than follow the City's P&P policy or custom. The record shows that GRPD officers were, at a minimum, authorized and trained to perform P&Ps during any field interrogation or stop in which an officer believed a P&P was appropriate. It is reasonably foreseeable that when a police department authorizes and trains its officers to use a specific investigative tactic, the officers will follow that training. While the City suggests that officers must consider the facts and circumstances of each encounter, there is no indication that the officers were instructed that probable cause of criminal conduct was a prerequisite to performing a P&P. The potential problem for the City is that performing a P&P without probable cause might violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights. U.S. Const., Am IV ("The right of the people to be secure in **777their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."). If the nonconsensual fingerprinting of a person without probable cause is unconstitutional, then the execution of the P&P policy authorizing such conduct would result in a constitutional violation. This is sufficient to show that reasonable minds could differ as to proximate causation.
V. RESPONSE TO THE CONCURRENCE
The concurring opinion argues that whenever a 42 USC 1983 plaintiff alleges that that the execution of a facially lawful policy or custom caused his or her injury the claim must be reviewed pursuant to the deliberate indifference standard. We find it unnecessary to adopt or reject that interpretation of the controlling Supreme Court cases. Rather, we think it sufficient for a reviewing court to determine whether the plaintiff claims that the alleged injury was caused by a municipal action that itself directed or authorized the violation of a federally protected right or whether the plaintiff claims that a municipality's inaction or omission caused municipal employees to violate the plaintiff's rights. We agree with the concurrence that if the theory of liability is premised on some variant of the latter, then the plaintiff must also show deliberate indifference to prevail.
No one disputes that we are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on matters of federal law. Abela v. Gen Motors Corp. , 469 Mich. 603, 606, 677 N.W.2d 325 (2004). The United States Supreme Court held in Canton , 489 U.S. at 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, "that the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with **778whom the police come into contact." The Supreme Court acknowledged that the training program in Canton was lawful, and the Court's analysis focused on the narrow issue of whether a policy of inaction (i.e., the failure to train) could serve as a basis for liability. The phrases "facially constitutional" or "facially lawful" are noticeably absent from that opinion. And in Brown , 520 U.S. at 415-416, 117 S.Ct. 1382, the Supreme Court held that the county was *800not liable for the sheriff's isolated decision to hire a deputy without adequate screening, because the respondent had not shown that the sheriff's decision "reflected a conscious disregard for a high risk that [the deputy] would use excessive force in violation of respondent's federally protected right." The Brown Court, 520 U.S. at 407, 117 S.Ct. 1382, added the "facially lawful" language to its restatement of Canton 's holding, but it did not expressly rule that the deliberate indifference standard applies in every case in which a plaintiff argues that the execution of a facially lawful policy or custom caused his or her injury.11 Instead, the Supreme Court merely said that "[c]laims not involving an allegation that the municipal action itself violated federal law, or directed or authorized the deprivation of federal rights, present much more difficult problems of proof," and that such claims require a showing of deliberate indifference. Id . at 406-407, 117 S.Ct. 1382. See also Connick v. Thompson , 563 U.S. 51, 60-61, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed. 2d 417 (2011) (evaluating under the deliberate indifference standard a theory of liability based on a municipality's decision not to provide training on a specific topic to certain employees). When a **779theory of liability is based on the absence of governmental action, it makes sense to more critically scrutinize claims of governmental culpability for that absence. But the Supreme Court has never explicitly required such critical scrutiny when the government specifically and affirmatively authorized, but did not require, its employees to engage in allegedly unlawful conduct.12
In this case, we have an allegation that a municipal action did authorize a deprivation of federal rights. Plaintiffs aver that a policy or custom affirmatively authorized the use of a specific investigative tactic during field interrogations and that GRPD officers were trained to believe that it was appropriate to use this tactic in the absence of probable cause. Under plaintiffs' theory, the municipality affirmatively authorized the precise conduct alleged to be unlawful and implemented its policy through the GRPD's training of officers to use a P&P in the manner that is alleged to be unconstitutional. Thus, whether plaintiffs specifically claim that the P&P policy is itself facially unconstitutional **780is beside the point for the purposes of determining whether the Court of Appeals erred, because the policy or custom identified by *801plaintiffs represents a municipal action that itself "authorized" allegedly unconstitutional conduct. See Brown , 520 U.S. at 406-407, 117 S.Ct. 1382.13 "Where a plaintiff claims that a particular municipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so, resolving these issues of fault and causation is straightforward." Brown , 520 U.S. at 404-405, 117 S.Ct. 1382. "[T]he conclusion that the action taken or directed by the municipality ... itself violates federal law will also determine that the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains." Id . at 405, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Thus, this is a "straightforward" case more akin to Monell and Pembaur than Brown or Canton . See id . at 404-405, 117 S.Ct. 1382.
We took this case to decide only whether any alleged violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights was the result of a policy or custom instituted or executed by the City. Having concluded that the Court of Appeals erred by ruling against plaintiffs on this issue, it is unnecessary at this time for us to reach the additional issue addressed by the concurring opinion.14
**781VI. CONCLUSION
In summary, we hold that it has been conclusively established by the City's concession that there exists a custom of performing a P&P during a field interrogation when an officer deems it appropriate. We further hold that, even without the City's concession as to the existence of a custom, the City's admissions, the officers' testimony, the GRPD manual, and the training materials, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City's custom has become an official policy. Genuine issues of material fact also remain concerning causation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order granting summary disposition based on the Court's conclusion that the alleged constitutional violations were not the result of a policy or custom of the City. We express no opinion with regard to whether plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Therefore, we reverse Part III of the Court of Appeals' opinion in both cases. We remand these cases to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the P&Ps at issue here violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Richard H. Bernstein, Bridget M. McCormack, David F. Viviano, Elizabeth T. Clement, JJ., concur.
Wilder, J. (concurring in judgment ).
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to fully explain the basis of my concurrence, including my understanding of the majority's holdings and the inquiry facing the Court of Appeals on remand. In my judgment, the *802majority opinion gives insufficient guidance to the bench and the bar concerning the state of **782the law governing municipal liability. I believe that we owe future § 1983 plaintiffs, who have suffered harm at the hands of a local government unit, and defendants, who need to understand the legal requirements governing their behavior, a thorough understanding of what they must demonstrate in order to prevail. At the same time, we are also obligated to give the clearest guidance possible to lower courts, so that they may adjudicate such claims as fairly as possible.
I
This case involves the proper application of § 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, now codified as 42 USC 1983. Section 1983 states, in part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
The United States Supreme Court has long held that this statute provides a cause of action for those claiming the deprivation of a federal right by a "person" acting under the authority of state law. Monroe v. Pape , 365 U.S. 167, 171-187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961), overruled in part on other grounds by Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs of the City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978).
In Monell , the Court held that a local unit of government was a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 and, as such, could be sued under the statute. Monell , 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Yet the Court also ruled that the law's text and history compelled the further conclusion **783that "Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort." Id . at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. In other words, there was no respondeat superior liability under § 1983 ; a municipality could not be held to account solely because it employed a tortfeasor. Id . In order to distinguish between an injury exacted solely by an employee and one attributable to the municipality, the Court concluded that "it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent *803official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Id . at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018.
Monell admittedly sketched the contours of municipal liability broadly. Id . at 695, 98 S.Ct. 2018. And it was not until later that the Court refined the scope of municipal liability in Pembaur v. Cincinnati , 475 U.S. 469, 471, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed. 2d 452 (1986). There, the Court examined whether a conscious decision by a municipal policymaker on a single occasion could constitute an official policy for the purposes of Monell liability. The Court answered yes, making it clear that Monell was, after all, a case about the allocation of responsibility. Id . at 475, 106 S.Ct. 1292. Monell 's "policy or custom" requirement was "intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible." Id . at 479-480, 106 S.Ct. 1292. As a logical corollary, liability could attach on the basis of a policymaker's single decision. All that mattered was that the decision was made by an official " 'whose acts or edicts may fairly be said to represent official policy.' " Id . at 480, 106 S.Ct. 1292, quoting Monell , 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. This was true regardless of whether the policymaker's decision "officially sanctioned" or otherwise **784"ordered" the conduct. Pembaur , 475 U.S. at 480, 106 S.Ct. 1292. In either case, the policymaker's decision represented "a deliberate choice" on behalf of the municipality to follow a particular course of action. Id . at 483, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (opinion of Brennan, J.).1
Monell and Pembaur make it clear that "municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible." Id . at 479-480, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (opinion of the Court). Furthermore, liability premised on anything less than " 'acts or edicts [that] may fairly be said to represent official policy' " amounts to legal responsibility premised solely on a respondeat superior theory. Id . at 480, 106 S.Ct. 1292, quoting Monell , 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. But since municipalities can only act through living persons, identifying conduct properly attributable to the municipality, in contrast to conduct that is actually the fault of an employee, presents a hard conceptual problem. Monell and Pembaur were, in fact, easy cases. They involved deliberate, unlawful action on behalf of municipal policymakers. Monell represents the situation in which local government officials have chosen to promulgate and implement an unconstitutional directive. In that type of case, the connection between culpable municipal conduct and eventual injury is relatively clear, even though municipal employees are usually responsible for carrying out the unlawful order. Similarly, Pembaur embodies the situation in which a municipal policymaker has, himself or herself, chosen to violate federal law. The implementation of this unlawful decision is subsumed by the initial choice to pursue that course of action. So again, the connection between culpable municipal conduct and eventual injury is readily apparent.
**785In City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris , 489 U.S. 378, 380, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed. 2d 412 (1989), the United States Supreme Court addressed a harder question: whether a municipality could be liable based on its failure to act rather than its affirmative conduct. More specifically, Canton asked whether a failure to adequately train municipal employees could ever form the basis of Monell liability. Canton explained that a municipal policy did not have to be unconstitutional, in and of itself, to implicate Monell . Id . at 387, 109 S.Ct. 1197. But the fact that an employee happened to apply a lawful policy in an unconstitutional manner could not, without more, give rise to municipal liability. Id ."[F]or liability would then rest [solely] on [a] respondeat superior" theory. Id . Accordingly, in the absence of apparent deliberate conduct, there had to be a degree of fault sufficient to infer that the municipality's inaction represented a conscious decision. Id . at 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197. Reviewing a range of options, the Court held that inadequate training "may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of [those affected]." Id . at 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197. In the Court's view, this was consistent with the underlying thrust of Monell that "[o]nly where a failure to [act] reflects a 'deliberate' or 'conscious' choice by a municipality ... can a city be liable." Id . at 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197.2
**786*804Canton 's deliberate indifference standard was interpreted by lower federal courts to apply whenever a plaintiff alleged that a federal right was violated pursuant to a policy that was facially lawful. Gonzalez v. Ysleta Independent School Dist. , 996 F.2d 745, 757-758 (C.A. 5, 1993) (reviewing decisions from various federal circuits concluding that Canton applied whenever a plaintiff claimed that a facially constitutional policy was applied unlawfully by a municipal employee).3 This is understandable. If Monell and Pembaur were easy cases because the line between culpable municipal conduct and injury was clear, an allegation that a municipality has failed to prevent its employees from unlawfully executing an otherwise valid policy presents no such obvious line of accountability. For Monell purposes, the important question remains whether such a failure to act may constitute a deliberate attempt to commit a constitutional injury. On one side of that line lies municipal liability; on the other lies vicarious liability for the acts of employees. When viewed in this light, Canton 's deliberate indifference **787standard is simply the functional equivalent of the culpable conduct that setting an unlawful policy presupposes. It is clear from this that a municipality can only be liable for failing to prevent its employees from unconstitutionally implementing a constitutional policy if the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm that would follow. That is, only under these circumstances is the failure to act synonymous with a "deliberate," or "conscious," unlawful choice on behalf of the municipality.
The United States Supreme Court later confirmed this understanding of Canton . In Bd of the Co. Comm'rs of Bryan Co., Oklahoma v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397, 402, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed. 2d 626 (1997), the Court addressed the question of whether a single hiring decision by a policymaker could be a "policy" that triggered municipal liability. The Court held that it could, in limited circumstances. And in coming to that conclusion, the Court summarized the import of its Monell jurisprudence:
Where a plaintiff claims that a particular municipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so, resolving these issues of fault and causation is straightforward. ... [P]roof that a municipality's legislative body or authorized *805decisionmaker has intentionally deprived a plaintiff of a federally protected right necessarily establishes that the municipality acted culpably. Similarly, the conclusion that the action taken or directed by the municipality or its authorized decisionmaker itself violates federal law will also determine that the municipal action was the moving force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains. ...
* * *
[But c]laims not involving an allegation that the municipal action itself violated federal law, or directed or **788authorized the deprivation of federal rights, present much more difficult problems of proof. That a plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of federal rights at the hands of a municipal employee will not alone permit an inference of municipal culpability and causation; the plaintiff will simply have shown that the employee acted culpably. We recognized these difficulties in Canton v.Harris .... [A] plaintiff seeking to establish municipal liability on the theory that a facially lawful municipal action has led an employee to violate a plaintiff's rights must demonstrate that the municipal action was taken with "deliberate indifference" as to its known or obvious consequences. A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice. [ Id . at 404-405, 406-407, 117 S.Ct. 1382 (citations omitted).]
According to the Brown Court, this legal framework reflected the rigorous standards of culpability and causation necessary to prevent municipal liability from collapsing into respondeat superior. Id . at 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Anything less would ignore what was recognized in Monell and repeatedly affirmed: "Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless deliberate action attributable to the municipality directly caused a deprivation of federal rights." Id . at 415, 117 S.Ct. 1382.
This Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on matters of federal law. Abela v. Gen Motors Corp , 469 Mich. 603, 606, 677 N.W.2d 325 (2004). And municipal liability under § 1983, a federal statute, undoubtedly constitutes such a matter. Accordingly, I believe that this Court is compelled to conclude the following: if a § 1983 plaintiff alleges that a municipal policy or custom is facially unlawful , he or she need only show that the policy existed and that its implementation caused the violation of his or her federal rights. But if a § 1983 plaintiff alleges that a municipal policy or custom is facially lawful , he or she must show not only that the policy existed and that its execution caused the violation of his or her federal **789rights, but also that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the unlawful way in which that policy was implemented. Only then can it be said that a municipality has made a "deliberate or conscious choice" to direct or sanction unconstitutional conduct. Pembaur , 475 U.S. at 483, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (opinion of Brennan, J.).4 **790*806In this case, plaintiffs have gone to some length to argue in their briefing and during oral argument that the deliberate indifference standard does not apply to this particular controversy.5 Therefore, because I agree with the majority that plaintiffs claim that the Grand Rapids Police Department had a policy or custom of completing "P&Ps"6 during field interrogations without probable cause and that this policy caused the violation **791of plaintiffs' constitutional rights, in my view, under the principles just discussed, plaintiffs must eventually show not only that the complained-of municipal policy existed and that its execution by Grand Rapids Police Department officers caused their constitutional *807injuries, but also that the policy or custom was facially unconstitutional.
II
The majority suggests that in this case it is unnecessary to address whether the policy itself is facially unconstitutional: because the policy authorizes the allegedly unconstitutional conduct, the alleged constitutional violation was the result of the municipality's actions rather than a failure to train its employees. However, with respect, this is a meaningless distinction. An allegation that an employee unconstitutionally applied a facially constitutional policy is the logical equivalent of an allegation that the municipality failed to adequately train its employees in how to constitutionally apply that policy. In either case, the municipality is being held liable because of its failure to ensure that its policy is applied constitutionally. Indeed, if the municipality appropriately trained its employees as to the constitutional manner in which to apply the policy, the municipality would indisputably not be liable if an employee nonetheless applied the policy in an unconstitutional manner.7
**792III
Today, the majority holds (1) that "a policy or custom that authorizes municipal employees to perform their duties in a particular manner represents a deliberate decision of the municipality and an employee's performance of his or her duties in the manner authorized may be considered acts of the municipality," ante at 794, and (2) that "if a policy or custom authorizes the use of a specific tactic and a police officer acts in accordance with that authorization, then the policy or custom is the cause in fact and the proximate cause of a constitutional violation arising from the use of that tactic," ante at 796. I concur in the judgment of the majority opinion insofar as it concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the existence of a municipal "policy or custom" and whether that "policy or custom" caused the constitutional violations alleged. Additionally, because plaintiffs do not allege deliberate indifference by the city of Grand Rapids, I would specifically direct the Court of Appeals to decide on remand whether the complained-of "policy or custom" was facially unconstitutional. Only by prevailing **793on that issue can plaintiffs demonstrate that the municipality is actually liable for their alleged injuries. In other *808words, only then will the connection between culpable municipal conduct and harm be sufficiently firm to implicate Monell liability.8
Stephen J. Markman, C.J., Kurtis T. Wilder, Brian K. Zahra, JJ., agree.