AND · 42usc1983:color-of-law
Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
Exact element source
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of ColumbiaSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [64:186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| no-state-action/private-insurer-using-state-authorized-withholding-procedure | Private insurer utilizing state-permitted procedure without state compulsion or joint participation (American Manufacturers) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| private-party/private-insurer-using-state-authorized-withholding-procedure | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — not | |
| public-official/administering-statutory-scheme | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — satisfied | |
| public-official/county-employed-public-defender-representing-indigent | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 — satisfied | |
| public-official/county-governing-board-members | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 — satisfied | |
| public-official/exercise-of-official-authority | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 8 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — applied/merits; /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — applied/merits; /f3d/189/0808-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Shepard (assistant public defender) and the Offender Advocate; subject: party=Shepard (assistant public defender) and the Offender Advocate Employment relationship is dispositive; county's lack of control over individual professional decisions and the defender's duty of undivided loyalty to the client are assumed and held "beside the point". Private court-appointed counsel still not under color of law. Dissent: wrong was not "made possible only because" of public office. | public-official/county-employed-public-defender-representing-indigent | The complaint alleged that Martha Shepard, an attorney in the Polk County, Iowa, Offender Advocate’s office, failed to represent appellant adequately in his appeal of a robbery conviction to the Supreme Court of Iowa.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [376:593] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf.Subsequently, she moved for permission to withdraw as counsel and to have the appeal dismissed as frivolous.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [1097:1205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf.All these lawyers are selected, paid, hired, and fired by the County.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [3484:3553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf.Public defenders receive their power not because they are selected by their clients, but because they are employed by the County to represent a certain class of clients, who likely have little or no choice in selecting the lawyer who will defend them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [3729:3980] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf.We hold that an attorney in a county or state funded public defender’s office acts under color of state law in representing indigent defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [4234:4378] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf. |
| /f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Polk County Board of Supervisors members; subject: party=Polk County Board of Supervisors members | public-official/county-governing-board-members | There can be no question that the members of the Polk County Board of Supervisors, in carrying out the responsibilities of that office, act under color of state law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [15569:15734] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf. |
| /f3d/189/0808-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f4th/141/417 — Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/502/0021-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded Acts within lawful authority and "necessary to governmental functions" are still under color of law; no carve-out for authorized official acts. | public-official/exercise-of-official-authority | While Hafer’s power to hire and fire derived from her position as auditor general, it said, a suit for damages based on the exercise of this authority could be brought against Hafer in her personal capacity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [2760:2967] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.Because of that intent, we have held that in § 1983 actions the statutory requirement of action “under color of” state law is just as broad as the Fourteenth Amendment’s “state action” requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [10623:10820] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07.The requirement of action under color of state law means that Hafer may be liable for discharging respondents precisely because of her authority as auditor general.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_502.jsonl#/us/502/0021-01; Unicode character offsets [9307:9471] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b981c1cb2a9bf4bab619f49a26674002633c907c86f39bd53f955befb5605c07. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsUndisputed (on-duty state corrections officers); respondents' "unauthorized personal dispute" argument was framed as an Eighth Amendment "punishment" point, and the Court took no position. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: private workers' compensation insurers and self-insured employers (petitioners); theory: state coercion or significant encouragement (Blum / Jackson close-nexus test); delegation of a traditionally exclusive public function; joint participation / symbiotic entanglement (Burton; Lugar); subject: party=private workers' compensation insurers and self-insured employers (petitioners); theory=state coercion or significant encouragement (Blum / Jackson close-nexus test); delegation of a traditionally exclusive public function; joint participation / symbiotic entanglement (Burton; Lugar) All three private-party routes rejected: nexus/coercion-encouragement (State merely permits the choice), public function (State has no obligation to provide benefits; withholding was historically a private prerogative), joint participation (heavy regulation is not Burton; no ex parte seizure by officials as in Lugar). First Lugar prong (acting pursuant to state statute) was met; second (state actor) failed. | private-party/private-insurer-using-state-authorized-withholding-procedure | Upon the proper filing of a request, an insurer may withhold payment to health care providers for the particular services being challenged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [3433:3572] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.It authorizes, but does not require, insurers to withhold payments for disputed medical treatment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [14382:14480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.the Bureau’s participation is limited to requiring insurers to file “a form prescribed by the Bureau,” 84 Pa. Code § 127.452, processing the request for technical compliance, and then forwarding the matter to a URO and informing the parties that utilization review has been requested.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [18931:19215] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.nothing in Pennsylvania’s Constitution or statutory scheme obligates the State to provide either medical treatment or workers’ compensation benefits to injured workers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [20896:21064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’ ”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [9774:9977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.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.a private party’s mere use of the State’s dispute resolution machinery, without the “overt, significant assistance of state officials,” Tulsa, supra, at 486, cannot.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [18073:18238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.We conclude that an insurer’s decision to withhold payment and seek utilization review of the reasonableness and necessity of particular medical treatment is not fairly attributable to the State.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [25713:25908] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97. |
| /us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: state officials administering the Act and the director of the State Workmen's Insurance Fund (own certiorari petitions denied); subject: party=state officials administering the Act and the director of the State Workmen's Insurance Fund (own certiorari petitions denied) | public-official/administering-statutory-scheme | All agree that the public officials responsible for administering the workers’ compensation system and the director of SWIF are state actors.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [12211:12352] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’ ”
/us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’ ”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [9774:9977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
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.Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
interpretation
a private party’s mere use of the State’s dispute resolution machinery, without the “overt, significant assistance of state officials,” Tulsa, supra, at 486, cannot.
/us/526/0040-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
a private party’s mere use of the State’s dispute resolution machinery, without the “overt, significant assistance of state officials,” Tulsa, supra, at 486, cannot.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_526.jsonl#/us/526/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [18073:18238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2f09bb34600ef67ab16a649c9f0dbc25827219d340838e2c2ae98add5e866c97.Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
interpretation
Public defenders receive their power not because they are selected by their clients, but because they are employed by the County to represent a certain class of clients, who likely have little or no choice in selecting the lawyer who will defend them.
/f2d/628/1104-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
Public defenders receive their power not because they are selected by their clients, but because they are employed by the County to represent a certain class of clients, who likely have little or no choice in selecting the lawyer who will defend them.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_628.jsonl#/f2d/628/1104-01; Unicode character offsets [3729:3980] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d2c865685b00f7d491a6a0a10e31df9c82bf1a5e46d7bc2a6fe79468154f11bf.Under West v. Atkins (487 U.S. 42 (1988)), traditional definition requires that the defendant exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law". Note Polk County v. Dodson (454 U.S. 312 (1981)) later reversed the Eighth Circuit's Dodson holding on public defenders, holding a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.