A Taste of Justice--Civil Rights Lawsuits, Under Color of Law when acting Unlawfully?

The prior video shifted, from my Con Law course, to my CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) course.
The basic framework of Section 1983 is:
--Every person
--who [acting] under color of [law]
--subjects any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction to the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution and laws
--shall be liable.
That sounds simple. But it is not that simple. “Every person” does not mean every person. And “shall be liable” does not mean every person who has violated constitutional rights have had to pay damages.
Here are the cases from the hypotheticals I discuss:
MONROE v. PAPE (1961)
--Chicago police officers argued they were not liable to Monroe. The officers said they were acting unlawfully and so they were not acting under color of law, and hence Monroe would not recover damages for their unlawful actions.
--The Court ruled that “acting under color of law” means those acting with the authority of law. And, here the Chicago police officers were exerting the authority of law when they subjected Monroe to their unlawful behaviors. Therefore, the Court sided with the plaintiff Monroe on this point.
--The Chicago police officers also argued that Section 1983 was passed by Congress pursuant to the 14th amendment (the Court agreed with that point); Section 1983 came from the KKK act which was designed to protect former slaves when the state did not protect them (The Court agreed with that point, too). Therefore, argued the officers, Monroe must go to the state first and try to get relief before he can proceed with his federal Section 1983 case. On their conclusion, the Court disagreed.
The Court decided that individuals/plaintiffs can bring their state claims AND Section 1983 (constitutional) claims all at once. Individuals/plaintiffs do not have to exhaust state remedies first. So, on this point, too, the Court sided with plaintiff Monroe.
BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS (1971)
Federal Bureau of Narcotics officers entered the home of Bivens without probable cause and subjected him to a lot.
The officers argued, that Section 1983 was passed by Congress pursuant to congressional authority under the 14th amendment (the Court agreed with that point); Section 1983 therefore directly applies to states, like Mississippi (the Court agreed with that point); Therefore, the federal officers said Bivens could not sue them for damages since they are federal officers not state officers. The Court said, not so fast.
There was a dissent, but the majority of the Court held that Bivens could make out a claim something like Section 1983 against the federal officers. The Court said it was not going to wait on Congress to act.
Therefore, when federal officers are sued in a Section 1983-like situation, it is now called a Bivens claim.
STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Is all of this confusing? Why can’t the individual/plaintiff just sue the state itself, sue the state directly (especially given that the state may provide the legal defense and pay any damages)?
Well, the state and the federal government have what is called “sovereign immunity.” The Court has tried to balance the
11th amendment state sovereign immunity (think states’ rights, protect treasuries of states)
AGAINST
the protections of the 14th amendment (think individual rights).
However, the Court has determined a state can be sued under these circumstances:
--the state consents to suit (like a tort claims act)
--congress expressly abrogates sovereign immunity for certain federal laws
--by suing the officers of the state
----------with Section 1983, for example, a plaintiff can sue an officer of the state (or one acting under color of that state law) in that person’s official capacity to get something like an injunction (telling the officer don’t follow that policy anymore)
-----------with Section 1983, for example, a plaintiff can sue an officer of the state (or one acting under color of that state law) in that person’s personal/individual capacity to get money damages BUT that person may be entitled to some form of IMMUNITY.
SO OUR NEXT VIDEO CLIPS CONSIDER VARIOUS FORMS OF IMMUNITY…………
Learning is a path to more justice. For my current law students in my courses, Constitutional Law and in Civil Rights Lawsuits (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983), this series is designed to help you prepare in advance of our class discussions and to review again after class….to take "a soak" in the law and not just a quick shower.
Learning is a pathway to enlightenment and to Justice… or at least to a taste of Justice.
Subscribe and sign up for notifications!!! See you again soon!! smile
NOTE: Views expressed on the videos in this series are my own. My views are not necessarily those of my institution or my students. For identification purposes only: I am a Law Professor at Mississippi College School of Law.
.