Government Violations of Civil Rights
People who work for the government hold substantial authority due to their position, but this authority is not unlimited. Government officials and employees generally cannot violate the civil rights of people who interact with them. Someone who has suffered a violation of their civil rights at the hands of a state or local government official can bring a Section 1983 claim. Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) is a federal law that allows citizens to sue in certain situations for violations of rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution or federal laws. Section 1983 only provides a right of access to state or federal courts, rather than any substantive rights.
A plaintiff who prevails in a Section 1983 claim may be awarded monetary damages, and a court also may issue an injunction. Damages may cover items such as medical bills to treat any injuries, lost wages caused by time missed from work, and any pain and suffering or emotional distress. Punitive damages may be awarded in especially extreme cases. An injunction is a court order that tells someone to do or stop doing something. A court might order a change to policies or procedures that would prevent future violations.
Establishing Liability Under Section 1983
The key to holding a government defendant liable under Section 1983 involves showing that they were acting under color of law at the time of the violation. “Acting under color of law” is a technical phrase that essentially means an abuse of power. This requirement thus excludes actions by a government official in a private role, outside the scope of their job. Showing that an official was acting under color of law may involve proving that they were carrying out one of their central duties, they were wearing a uniform associated with their job, they were using property or equipment provided by their job, or they showed proof of their official status or claimed to be a government official, among other indicators.
However, once a plaintiff sets out the elements of a Section 1983 claim, they still may need to overcome an additional hurdle known as qualified immunity.
The Qualified Immunity Defense to Section 1983 Claims
Accountability for abuses of power is vital in a democracy. At the same time, government officials cannot effectively do their jobs if they are worried about being sued at every step of the way. The qualified immunity defense responds to this concern.
Qualified immunity allows government officials to avoid liability under Section 1983 if their actions did not violate a clearly established right. This is a right that would be known to a reasonably competent government official in their situation, such that they should have been aware that their conduct was unlawful. (The right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.) The conduct resulting in the Section 1983 claim must have clearly violated the right. This means that questionable or mildly dubious behavior usually does not lead to liability. Instead, government officials tend to be held liable only for egregious misconduct, and the plaintiff generally needs to produce case precedents based on facts very similar to their case.
Bivens Actions: Suing Federal Officials
Section 1983 applies only to misconduct by state or local government officials. This does not mean that citizens lack recourse when federal government officials violate their rights. In a case known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizens can bring civil rights claims against federal officials in narrow situations. Bivens claims may be brought when federal law has not provided a separate way to address a violation of the right at issue. They are generally based only on constitutional violations, rather than violations of federal statutes. Bivens claims thus are less common than Section 1983 claims.
