What Is Section 1983? | Be My Own Attorney
Blog Civil Rights

What Is Section 1983?

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the federal statute that allows people to sue state and local government officials who violated their constitutional rights. It's one of the most important civil rights laws in the United States — and one of the least understood by the people who need it most.

The statute in plain English

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State...subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured..."

— 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Translated: if a government official acting in their official capacity violates your constitutional rights, you can sue them in federal court for damages and injunctive relief. No need to exhaust state remedies first. The federal courthouse is open to you directly.

Section 1983 was enacted in 1871, passed after the Civil War to give newly-freed citizens a federal remedy when Southern states refused to protect their rights. It has since become the primary vehicle for challenging police misconduct, unlawful arrests, excessive force, and First Amendment retaliation by government actors.

The four elements of a Section 1983 claim

1
The defendant is a "person"

Section 1983 applies to individuals acting under color of state law — police officers, government employees, local officials. It does not apply to the federal government (that requires a Bivens claim) and, after Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police (1989), it generally doesn't apply to states themselves — only individual officers and local governments.

2
Acting "under color of state law"

The official must have been acting in their official capacity or using their governmental authority when the violation occurred. An off-duty officer acting as a private citizen generally isn't acting under color of law. An officer who uses their badge to accomplish a personal goal generally is.

3
Deprivation of a constitutional right

The violation must be of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. First Amendment (free speech, assembly, press, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and seizure, unlawful arrest), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (due process, equal protection) — all are actionable under § 1983.

4
Causation and damages

The deprivation must have caused you actual injury. This can be physical injury, loss of liberty (arrest and detention), emotional distress, financial harm, or — in some cases — nominal damages even when no measurable harm occurred, as long as there was a constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity: the main obstacle

The biggest practical barrier to Section 1983 claims is qualified immunity — a judicially-created doctrine (not in the statute itself) that protects government officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person would have known.

In practice, courts have interpreted this very broadly in favor of officers. The "clearly established" requirement has meant that unless there's a prior case with nearly identical facts in which a court already held the conduct unconstitutional, the officer gets immunity. This has shielded officers from liability in many cases where the constitutional violation seems obvious.

Qualified immunity does not apply to municipalities (local governments). Claims against the city or county under Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) don't require overcoming immunity — but they require proving that a specific policy, custom, or failure to train caused your constitutional violation.

Section 1983 and First Amendment auditors

For First Amendment auditors, Section 1983 is the primary legal tool for addressing retaliatory arrests. When a police officer arrests someone specifically because of their protected speech — filming police, recording in a public space, exercising First Amendment rights — that's First Amendment retaliation, actionable under § 1983.

The Supreme Court recognized First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims in Nieves v. Bartlett (2019), though with a significant limitation: if there was probable cause for any arrest, the claim generally fails, unless the plaintiff can show that officers typically don't enforce that law against people who don't engage in the same protected speech.

See also: First Amendment auditors and Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation.

Facing retaliatory charges after a civil rights encounter?

Be My Own Attorney is built for exactly this situation — the intersection of criminal defense and civil rights. Brief analyzes your case for defense angles. Stand gives you real-time support in court.

Join the Waitlist

Section 1983 FAQ

Generally yes, but with an important limitation from Heck v. Humphrey (1994): if your civil claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction or sentence, you can't bring it until the conviction is overturned. Claims based on conduct during the arrest (excessive force, for example) are usually not barred by Heck. Claims that the arrest itself was unlawful may be if you've already been convicted.
Compensatory damages for actual losses: medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress, loss of liberty. Punitive damages when the officer acted with malicious or reckless intent to violate your rights. Nominal damages (typically $1) when a constitutional violation is proven but no actual damages are shown. Attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if you prevail — which can be substantial.
Section 1983 doesn't have its own limitations period — federal courts borrow the state's personal injury statute of limitations. In most states, that's two to three years from the date the claim accrued (typically when the violation occurred or when you knew or should have known about it). Do not delay if you're considering a claim.
Yes — both in their individual capacity (personally liable) and official capacity (equivalent to suing the government entity). Qualified immunity applies to individual capacity claims. It does not apply when you're suing for injunctive relief against an official in their official capacity. Individual capacity claims also allow for punitive damages; official capacity claims typically do not.
No. Section 1983 only covers those acting under color of state law — meaning state and local government actors. For federal officers, the equivalent remedy is a Bivens claim, recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971). Bivens claims are more restricted and harder to bring successfully than § 1983 claims.