Color of Law
Acting with the authority of government — the threshold requirement for any § 1983 claim.
What It Is
“Under color of law” means using the power, authority, or resources of government. A police officer making an arrest is acting under color of law. So is a judge issuing an order, a public school principal suspending a student, or a city inspector condemning a building.
It’s the gateway element of any § 1983 claim. No color of law, no case.
What It Covers
Color of law includes:
- On-duty conduct — Officer making a traffic stop, arrest, or search
- Off-duty conduct with state authority — Officer flashing a badge, using a service weapon, or invoking police power while off duty
- State-created authority — Private actors deputized by the state, private prison operators, court-appointed guardians
- Misuse of authority — An officer who fabricates evidence is acting under color of law because they’re using their position to do it — even though it’s illegal
What It Doesn’t Cover
- Purely private conduct with no connection to government authority
- Federal officials (§ 1983 is for state actors — federal violations use Bivens)
- Private companies acting independently, unless they’re performing a traditional government function
The Line
The test isn’t whether the official was authorized to do what they did. It’s whether they were using state power when they did it. An officer who beats someone during an arrest is acting under color of law even though beatings are illegal. That’s the whole point of § 1983 — it covers abuses of power, not just exercises of it.
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) established this clearly: § 1983 reaches officials who act under color of law even when they violate state law.
Key Cases
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) — Color of law includes conduct that violates state law
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) — Private physician under contract with prison acted under color of law