ISSUE BRIEF: Repairing Our System of Constitutional Accountability: Reflections on the 150th Anniversary of Section 1983

Summary

Cardozo L. Rev. De·Novo (Forthcoming 2022)

Enacted in 1871 against the backdrop of horrific state and Ku Klux Klan violence aimed at undoing Reconstruction and a criminal justice system that systematically devalued Black life, Section 1983 gave those victimized by official abuse of power a critical tool to hold state and local governments and their officials accountable in a court of law. It aimed to stop state actors and others from killing, brutalizing, and terrorizing Black people with impunity. Section 1983 sought to “carry into execution the guarantees of the Constitution in favor of personal security and personal rights,” reflecting that, in our constitutional system, “judicial tribunals of the country are the places to which the citizen resorts for protection of his person and his property in every case in a free government.”

In the text of Section 1983, Congress demanded government accountability, seeking to put an end to the denial of fundamental rights and subjugation of those seeking to enjoy the promise of freedom after centuries of chattel slavery. Indeed, Congress modeled Section 1983 on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a statute that refused to provide any official immunities because that would “place[] officials above the law.” The accountability Section 1983 sought to achieve, however, remains elusive because the remedy Congress designed has been gutted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has converted a statute designed to open the courthouse doors to those aggrieved by official abuse of power into a statute that bolts the courthouse doors firmly shut, immunizing wrongdoers rather than holding them to account. The respect for enacted text the Supreme Court repeatedly preaches has been missing in action when it comes to Section 1983.

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Ortiz v. Foxx

In Ortiz v. Foxx, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is considering whether state court judges who administer and enforce Illinois’s name-change statute are subject to suit by a group of transgender...
Access to Justice
June 29, 2022

RELEASE: In Torres, Important Victory for Access to Justice, Veteran Victim of “Burn Pits” 

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Torres v. Texas Department of Public...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Access to Justice
June 13, 2022

As SCOTUS’ conservative majority weakens civil rights, Sonia Sotomayor begs to differ

Boston Globe
In her latest dissent, Sotomayor criticizes ‘a restless and newly constituted Court.’
By: David H. Gans, By Marcela García
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Wells v. Warden

In Wells v. Warden, the en banc Eleventh Circuit is considering whether dismissals for failing to exhaust administrative remedies count as strikes under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Access to Justice
June 8, 2022

Supreme Court Again Raises Barrier to Sue Law Enforcement

Bloomberg Law
The US Supreme Court further weakened a judge-made doctrine meant to hold federal law enforcement...
By: David H. Gans, By Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Access to Justice
June 8, 2022

RELEASE: In Egbert, Conservative Majority Commits Grave Error that Betrays Our Constitution

WASHINGTON, DC – This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Egbert v. Boule,...
By: David H. Gans