AND · 42usc1983:color-of-law.state-actor
Second prong of Lugar: whether the private or hybrid entity may fairly be treated as a state actor under the public-function test, state-compulsion/nexus test, symbiotic-relationship test, or joint-action test.
Exact element source
of any State or Territory or the District of ColumbiaSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [133:186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| state-actor/publicly-designated-nonprofit-with-mandated-public-officials-on-board | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 | Lugar prong 2: party charged with the deprivation may fairly be said to be a state actor | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: CAGW; theory: Lugar prong: defendant fairly a state actor; subject: party=CAGW; theory=Lugar prong: defendant fairly a state actor State designation of the entity plus required minority of public officials on the governing board makes the entity a state actor; this alone does not make its every act state action. | state-actor/publicly-designated-nonprofit-with-mandated-public-officials-on-board | CAGW is a private non-profit Delaware corporation organized to fulfill the goals of the EOA. It was created and designated as the official anti-poverty agency for New Castle County, Delaware in the mid-1960’s.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [4800:5009] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.CAGW received approximately 70 percent of its funding from federal funds, 20 percent from the state funds, 9.5 percent from local funds, and one-half of one percent from private sources.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [5010:5196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.During 1981, the period in question, CAGW’s Board of Directors complied with the statutorily mandated composition of public, private and target group members.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [5245:5403] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.Nonetheless, the state participated in the continuing operations of CAGW through the statutorily mandated requirement that at least one third of the Board of Directors must be state or local officials or their representatives.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [20483:20709] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.The Court agrees with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in finding that the lack of a majority of public officials on the board is irrelevant to a conclusion that CAGW is a state actor.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [20922:21130] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.The Court concludes that CAGW is a state actor and thereby satisfies one prong of the Lugar analysis.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [22412:22513] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The Court agrees with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in finding that the lack of a majority of public officials on the board is irrelevant to a conclusion that CAGW is a state actor.
/f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983
The Court agrees with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in finding that the lack of a majority of public officials on the board is irrelevant to a conclusion that CAGW is a state actor.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [20922:21130] (end exclusive); SHA-256 17afc927bb04fdade70d9f70b64a9bd28fc07264d61e2116bf4fdfdf73290a97.Second prong of Lugar: whether the private or hybrid entity may fairly be treated as a state actor under the public-function test, state-compulsion/nexus test, symbiotic-relationship test, or joint-action test.
interpretation
Action taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the State is not state action.
/us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
Action taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the State is not state action.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [13972:14077] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.Second prong of Lugar: whether the private or hybrid entity may fairly be treated as a state actor under the public-function test, state-compulsion/nexus test, symbiotic-relationship test, or joint-action test.