Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1991

Hafer v. Melo

502 U.S. 21 | 112 S. Ct. 358 | 116 L. Ed. 2d 301 | 1991 U.S. LEXIS 6502

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that § 1983 permits damages suits against state officials personally for constitutional violations committed through official authority; the official nature of the act does not itself create either nonperson status or Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Background

Barbara Hafer was elected Auditor General of Pennsylvania in 1988. The respondents were former employees in that office. Some alleged that Hafer fired them after accusing them of having obtained their jobs through payments to a former office employee; others alleged that she dismissed them because of their Democratic affiliation and support for her election opponent.

The employees sued Hafer and another official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They sought damages, and some also sought reinstatement. The Federal District Court dismissed the relevant § 1983 claims, reading Will v. Michigan Department of State Police to mean that Hafer could not be liable for employment decisions made while serving as Auditor General.

The Third Circuit reversed that portion of the dismissal. It held that the claims for reinstatement could proceed against Hafer in her official capacity and that the damages claims, understood as personal-capacity claims, could proceed because Hafer acted under color of state law. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a state officer may be personally liable for damages under § 1983 when the alleged wrongdoing consisted of official acts.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a state official sued in an individual capacity is a “person” subject to damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the challenged conduct was undertaken through official authority.

Holding

Yes. State officials sued in their individual capacities are “persons” under § 1983, even when the alleged constitutional deprivation arose from actions taken in the course of their official duties.

Reasoning

The Court began with the distinction between official-capacity and personal-capacity suits. An official-capacity suit is, in substance, a suit against the governmental entity itself; the entity is the real party in interest, its policy or custom must have caused the violation, and the defendant may invoke only the entity’s immunities. A personal-capacity suit instead seeks to impose individual liability on the officer for conduct undertaken under color of state law, and the officer may assert personal immunity defenses.

Will did not resolve this case in Hafer’s favor. Will held that neither a State nor a state official sued for damages in an official capacity is a “person” under § 1983 because such a suit is effectively one against the State. Its reference to officials “acting in their official capacities” concerned the capacity in which the official was sued, not whether the allegedly harmful act was an official act.

An officer named as an individual defendant comes to court as an individual and therefore fits naturally within § 1983’s term “person.” To establish personal liability, a plaintiff need only show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right; the plaintiff need not show that an official policy or custom caused the injury.

Hafer’s proposed rule would invert § 1983’s operation. The statute reaches abuses of power made possible by state authority, so Hafer could be liable precisely because she used her authority as Auditor General to discharge the respondents. The Court rejected the idea that the same official authority that satisfies the under-color-of-state-law requirement also automatically shields the officer from personal suit.

The Court also rejected Hafer’s effort to distinguish between unauthorized acts and acts that are within an official’s authority and necessary to governmental operations. Section 1983 contains no such limitation. Its purpose is to provide a remedy against officials who misuse state authority, whether their conduct conforms to or exceeds their lawful authority.

Accepting Hafer’s rule would effectively give state executive officials absolute immunity for a broad range of official conduct. But absolute immunity is limited to a narrow class of officials and functions justified by history and institutional necessity. Administrative employment decisions ordinarily receive, at most, qualified immunity; they do not become absolutely immune merely because they are official acts.

Issue #2

Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal § 1983 damages action against a state official in her individual capacity because the alleged conduct was official in nature.

Holding

No. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits seeking to impose individual and personal liability on state officials under § 1983.

Reasoning

Will was not itself an Eleventh Amendment holding. It involved a suit in state court, and the Court considered state sovereign immunity only as relevant to interpreting whether Congress meant § 1983 to authorize suits against States. Thus, Will did not establish an Eleventh Amendment bar to personal-capacity damages actions in federal court.

Scheuer v. Rhodes had already rejected the proposition that a personal-capacity damages action against a state official is necessarily a suit against the State. Since Ex parte Young, state officials have not enjoyed an Eleventh Amendment shield when they are accused of depriving someone of federal rights under color of state law, so long as the plaintiff seeks to impose personal rather than treasury-paid liability.

The Court acknowledged that the prospect of personal damages can affect an official’s performance of public duties. But that concern is addressed through personal immunities, particularly qualified immunity where applicable, rather than by treating all official conduct as immune under the Eleventh Amendment.