Constitutional Law
State Action Doctrine
The requirement that a constitutional violation involve government conduct — not just private behavior.
What It Is
The Constitution restricts government action, not private conduct. The state action doctrine determines when conduct by a private entity or individual is sufficiently connected to the government to trigger constitutional protections.
For § 1983, this overlaps with the color of law requirement. A private security guard who beats you isn’t acting under color of law — unless they were deputized, working under government contract, or acting jointly with police.
When Private Actors Become State Actors
Courts have recognized several tests:
- Public function: The private party performs a function “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Running a prison qualifies. Running a shopping mall doesn’t.
- Joint action: The private party acts jointly or in concert with government officials. An off-duty officer moonlighting as private security who uses police authority may be a state actor.
- Nexus/entwinement: The state is so entwined with the private entity that the private conduct is effectively state action.
- Compulsion: The state compelled or coerced the private party’s conduct.
Why It Matters
If the person who violated your rights isn’t a state actor, you can’t bring a § 1983 claim. Period. This matters when dealing with:
- Private security companies
- Private prison operators
- Hospital staff in government-contracted facilities
- Tow truck drivers acting at police direction
- Informants working with police
Key Cases
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) — Two-part test for state action under § 1983
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) — “Entwinement” theory of state action
- Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019) — Narrowed public function doctrine; operating public access channels isn’t a traditional state function