DEFENSE · 42usc1983:x-eleventh-amendment
Bars damages suits in federal court against a State or state officials in their official capacities (absent waiver, whereas § 1983 does not abrogate sovereign immunity under Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)), but does not bar personal-capacity suits (Hafer) or Ex parte Young prospective injunctive relief.
Exact element source
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any StateSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [46:145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bar (official-capacity damages / retrospective relief) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law | sovereign-immunity/personal-capacity-damages-not-against-treasury | That is, the Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose “individual and personal liability” on state officials under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [15323:15472] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Insofar as respondents seek damages against Hafer personally, the Eleventh Amendment does not restrict their ability to sue in federal court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [15725:15866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
That is, the Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose “individual and personal liability” on state officials under § 1983.
Hafer v. Melo — 502 U.S. 21 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
That is, the Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against suits to impose “individual and personal liability” on state officials under § 1983.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [15323:15472] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Bars damages suits in federal court against a State or state officials in their official capacities (absent waiver, whereas § 1983 does not abrogate sovereign immunity under Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)), but does not bar personal-capacity suits (Hafer) or Ex parte Young prospective injunctive relief.