42 U.S.C. § 1983
How should the federal government provide a legal remedy for individuals whose constitutional rights are violated by persons acting under the authority of state law, when state courts fail or refuse to offer protection?
The Decision
Passed by Republican majorities in both the House and Senate (largely along party lines) decision · Opinion by Representative Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio (principal sponsor); signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant · 1871
Majority Opinion— Representative Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio (principal sponsor); signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grantconcurring ↓dissent ↓
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1 — now 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — provides that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory, 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, a suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. In plain English: if a government official (or someone exercising government authority) violates your federal constitutional or statutory rights, you can sue that person for damages or court orders in federal court.
The statute was enacted by Congress — not decided by the Supreme Court — and was signed into law by President Grant on April 20, 1871. It passed both chambers of Congress with the support of the Republican Reconstruction majority. The core reasoning behind the statute was that the Fourteenth Amendment created individual rights against state action, and Congress had the affirmative power under Section 5 of that amendment to create mechanisms for enforcing those rights. The sponsors argued that a private lawsuit was the most effective enforcement tool because it empowered individual victims rather than relying solely on federal prosecutors or military intervention.
The statute applies only to action taken 'under color of state law,' meaning it targets government officials and those exercising government authority — not purely private conduct. It does not create new constitutional rights but provides the procedural vehicle through which existing constitutional rights (like free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, equal protection, and due process) can be enforced against state and local officials. It covers all manner of government actors: police officers, public school officials, prison guards, mayors, city council members, social workers, and anyone else exercising state authority.
For nearly a century after its enactment, Section 1983 was largely dormant. Courts interpreted its scope narrowly, and few plaintiffs successfully invoked it. Its modern significance dates from the mid-twentieth century, when the Supreme Court and Congress breathed new life into the statute, transforming it into the primary tool for vindicating civil rights in America. Today, tens of thousands of Section 1983 lawsuits are filed every year in federal courts across the country, making it one of the most litigated provisions in all of American law.
Concurring Opinions
Because this is a statute enacted by Congress rather than a Supreme Court opinion, there are no formal concurring opinions. However, even among Republican supporters, there was debate about the statute's proper scope — some members favored broader provisions targeting private conspiracies (addressed in other sections of the Act), while others preferred to limit the statute to state action, which is the form Section 1 ultimately took.
Dissenting Opinions
Democratic Congressional Minorityjoined by Various Democratic members of the House and Senate
Opponents argued that the statute was an unconstitutional overreach of federal power that would destroy the traditional balance between state and federal authority. They contended that the federal government had no business creating private lawsuits against state officials for actions taken under state law.
- The bill violated principles of federalism by subjecting state and local officials to suit in federal court for carrying out their duties under state law
- The Fourteenth Amendment did not grant Congress the sweeping power to regulate the conduct of every state official, and the legislation exceeded the bounds of Section 5 enforcement power
Background & Facts
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not, strictly speaking, a Supreme Court case — it is a landmark federal statute originally enacted as Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, commonly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. It was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. Because of its extraordinary importance to American civil rights litigation, it warrants its own entry as one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in U.S. history.
The backdrop of the statute was the violent chaos of Reconstruction. After the Civil War and the ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, Southern states saw an explosive rise in organized terrorist violence against freed Black Americans, Union sympathizers, and Republican officeholders. The Ku Klux Klan and similar groups carried out murder, arson, beatings, and voter intimidation on a massive scale. State and local governments were either complicit in this violence, powerless to stop it, or actively hostile to the rights of Black citizens. State courts routinely refused to hold officials accountable or protect victims.
President Grant sent a message to Congress in March 1871 describing conditions in the South as amounting to outright insurrection. He urged Congress to pass legislation giving the federal government tools to protect constitutional rights where states refused to do so. Representative Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio introduced the bill in the House. The resulting statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, contained several sections targeting Klan violence and official misconduct. Section 1 — now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — created a private right of action allowing any person to sue in federal court when a state official or someone acting under color of state law deprives them of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or federal statutes.
The legislation was fiercely debated along partisan lines. Republicans, who held large majorities in both chambers during Reconstruction, argued it was a necessary exercise of congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to enforce that amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Democrats and some conservative critics objected that the bill invaded states' rights and upset the traditional balance of federal and state authority. The act was part of a broader series of Enforcement Acts designed to implement the Reconstruction Amendments.
Although Section 1983 was used sparingly for many decades — courts interpreted it very narrowly — it was dramatically revived in the twentieth century and is today the single most important vehicle for civil rights lawsuits in the United States. Virtually every lawsuit alleging that a police officer, school official, prison warden, or other government actor violated someone's constitutional rights is brought under this statute.
The Arguments
The Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection and due process was being systematically violated across the South by state officials and private actors operating with official complicity. Congress had both the constitutional authority and the moral obligation to create a federal remedy.
- Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly grants Congress the power to enforce its provisions through appropriate legislation
- State courts and state governments had proven unable or unwilling to protect the constitutional rights of Black citizens and their allies against organized violence and official misconduct
- Without a private federal cause of action, the rights guaranteed by the Reconstruction Amendments would remain empty promises with no practical enforcement mechanism
The proposed statute would dangerously expand federal power at the expense of state sovereignty and violate principles of federalism by allowing federal courts to supervise state and local officials on matters traditionally left to the states.
- The Constitution reserves police power and the administration of justice primarily to the states, and Congress should not override that structure
- Federal courts would be overwhelmed if individuals could bypass state remedies and sue government officials directly in federal court
- The bill represented an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion into the internal governance of the states