The phrase “under color of law” is used in the federal civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for individuals who have been deprived of their constitutional rights by government officials. Specifically, Section 1983 states:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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 phrase “under color of law” has a specific legal meaning and sets out the scope of who can be sued under Section 1983. This article will examine the meaning of “under color of law” and how courts have interpreted this language in Section 1983 cases.
Origins of “Under Color of Law”
The phrase “under color of law” originated in 19th century criminal statutes outlawing various forms of official misconduct by government officers. For example, an 1871 federal statute made it a crime if two or more persons “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” This statute applied to acts done “under color of law” and was the basis for some of the first federal civil rights prosecutions against Ku Klux Klan members and others violating civil rights during Reconstruction.
When Section 1983 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress included the “under color of law” language to incorporate the body of law that had developed under these criminal statutes. This linked Section 1983 to the meaning of “under color of law” that prohibited official misconduct by government officers.
Supreme Court Interpretation
The Supreme Court first examined the meaning of “under color of law” under Section 1983 in Monroe v. Pape (1961). The Court held that “under color of law” encompasses not only actions taken directly under state law, but also the misuse of power made possible because the defendant is clothed with authority under state law. In essence, the defendant is able to take the challenged action because of the position of authority granted by the state.
The Supreme Court explained that Congress intended Section 1983 to provide a federal remedy against “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” Therefore, actions by state officers in abuse of their authority satisfy the “under color of law” requirement.
In Monroe, police officers conducted a warrantless raid on and search of the plaintiff’s home. While their actions violated state law and the Constitution, the Court found they had acted “under color of law” because the officers were acting in their official capacity as police officers clothed with the authority of the state.
Scope of “Under Color of Law”
Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the “under color of law” requirement for Section 1983 claims is expansive and covers almost all actions by state and local government officials acting in their official capacities. The key question is whether the official is abusing power derived from state authority, not whether the action itself is authorized by state law.
There are two broad categories of action recognized by courts as sufficient to allege “under color of law” under Section 1983:
- Exercise of power possessed by virtue of state law
- Exercise of responsibilities pursuant to state law
Actions that fall into these categories are considered under color of law even if they violate state law or exceed the defendant’s authority.
For example, in Screws v. United States (1945), a Georgia sheriff beat a handcuffed African American prisoner to death. While this was contrary to state law, the Court held that the sheriff had acted under color of law because he had used the power granted to him as a sheriff, even if unlawfully.
This interpretation means that most actions by state and local officials, undertaken in their official capacity, can form the basis for a Section 1983 claim. This includes actions that violate state law or policy, as long as the official is using power made possible by holding state office.
When is Action Not Under Color of Law?
There are limited circumstances when courts have found that actions by government officials are deemed to be outside the scope of their office and so not under color of law. These can include:
- Private actions by an official
- Unofficial actions by an off-duty officer
- Actions by an official of a different jurisdiction
For example, in Martinez v. Colon (1999), an off-duty police officer shot his girlfriend in the head during an argument at their home. The First Circuit held that because he was acting as a private citizen, not exercising official power, the shooting was not under color of law.
Similarly, acts by an official of a different jurisdiction are generally not considered under color of state law. So if an officer from Jurisdiction A takes action against someone in Jurisdiction B, they would not satisfy Section 1983’s “under color of law” requirement.
However, courts still look at the specific circumstances to determine if the official is in some way using power derived from the state. For example, an off-duty officer flashing a state-issued badge to intimidate someone could be acting under color of law, even if off the clock.
Private Entities Acting Under Color of Law
In limited circumstances, private entities or individuals can also be found to be acting under color of state law and subject to Section 1983 liability. Courts use different tests to determine if the action by the private party is considered state action:
- Public function test – A private entity performs a function that is traditionally the exclusive domain of the state
- State compulsion test – The state has exercised coercive power to compel the challenged action
- Joint participation test – State officers and private parties have acted in concert in the challenged action
- Symbiotic relationship test – The state has insinuated itself with the private entity through funding or regulation
For example, in West v. Atkins (1988), the Supreme Court held that a private physician contracted to provide medical services to inmates at a state prison hospital was acting under color of state law because the provision of medical services to inmates is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.
However, the tests have significant limitations, and most courts construe state action narrowly in the context of private parties. Merely being subject to extensive state regulation or receiving public funding is generally insufficient on its own to convert a private party into a state actor.
Pleading Requirements
For a Section 1983 complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that the challenged conduct was committed by someone acting under color of state law. Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
Under the federal pleading standards, a Section 1983 complaint must allege specific facts showing:
- The person acting under color of law was an official, employee or agent of a state or local government entity
- The challenged actions occurred because of power the defendant possessed by state authority
- The defendant was using their official power to carry out the challenged conduct
For private parties, the complaint must allege facts that would establish one of the tests for state action noted above. Merely labeling a private party as a state actor is not sufficient.
Courts will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the defendant acted under color of state law based on facts pleaded, not legal conclusions stated. The defendant’s government position or authority, on its own, is insufficient to establish action under color of law.
Burden of Proof
Proving action under color of state law is a threshold issue in any Section 1983 case. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was committed by defendants acting under color of law.
In disputed cases, courts will closely examine the nature and circumstances of the conduct, beyond just the defendant’s government position. Relevant factors can include:
- Defendant’s on or off duty status
- Where conduct occurred
- Whether following official policies or orders
- Whether trying to further state interests
- Whether identity as a state official was apparent
The plaintiff must establish with competent evidence a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s official status and the challenged conduct. Legal conclusions or speculation will not suffice.
If the plaintiff fails to prove action under color of law, the defendant will be entitled to dismissal or summary judgment on the Section 1983 claim.
Defenses
Even if conduct is found to be under color of law, defendants can raise immunities and defenses under Section 1983:
Qualified immunity – Applies to government officials as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about. Allows immunity from lawsuits unless these rights are clearly established.
Absolute immunity – Applies to officials like legislators, judges and prosecutors for acts taken in their official capacity. Provides a complete bar to suit.
Statute of limitations – Section 1983 has no specific federal statute of limitations, so the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies. This is generally 2-3 years for Section 1983 claims.
Monetary Damages
Section 1983 allows for the recovery of monetary damages from defendants found liable for violating rights while acting under color of law.
Compensatory damages to cover a plaintiff’s actual losses can include damages for:
– Physical injury and pain & suffering
– Emotional distress, fear, anxiety
– Damage to property and possessions
– Lost wages and income
Punitive damages may be awarded in egregious cases where the defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.
In addition, successful Section 1983 plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This provides an important enforcement mechanism for civil rights violations.
Conclusion
The “under color of law” requirement is essential to holding government officials accountable for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By covering both authorized and unauthorized abuses of power granted by the state, the expansive interpretation of this phrase provides robust remedies for deprivation of constitutional rights. It ensures that merely being in a position of state authority does not shield defendants from liability when wielding that authority to infringe on protected rights. Section 1983 remains one of the key civil rights enforcement tools for challenging unconstitutional conduct by state and local officials.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Federal statute allowing civil lawsuits against state/local officials for deprivation of rights |
| Under color of law | Misuse of power made possible because wrongdoer has authority under state law |
| State action doctrine | Tests for determining if private conduct qualifies as state action |
| Qualified immunity | Defense for officials whose conduct did not violate clearly established rights |
| Absolute immunity | Complete defense that bars suit against officials like legislators/judges |
In summary, the article provides a detailed overview of the meaning and interpretation of “under color of law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It examines the origins of the phrase, Supreme Court precedent, scope and limitations, pleading requirements, defenses, and remedies available. The key takeaway is that under color of law encompasses both authorized and unauthorized abuse of state-granted power, providing an essential tool for challenging civil rights violations by state and local officials.