491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)
Ray Will filed suit in Michigan Circuit Court alleging violations of the United States and Michigan Constitutions as grounds for a claim under § 1983.1 He alleged that he had been denied a promotion to a data systems analyst position with the Department of State Police for an improper reason, that is, because his brother had been a student activist and the subject of a "red squad" file maintained by respondent.2 Named as defendants were the Department of State Police and the Director of State Police in his official capacity, also a respondent here.3
The Circuit Court remanded the case to the Michigan Civil Service Commission for a grievance hearing. While the grievance was pending, petitioner filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims raising an essentially identical § 1983 claim.4 The Civil Service Commission ultimately found in petitioner's favor, ruling that respondents had refused to promote petitioner because of "partisan considerations."5
On the basis of that finding, the state-court judge, acting in both the Circuit Court and the Court of Claims cases, concluded that petitioner had established a violation of the United States Constitution.6 The judge held that the Circuit Court action was barred under state law but that the Claims Court action could go forward.7 The judge also ruled that respondents were persons for purposes of § 1983.8
The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the judgment against the Department of State Police.9 The Michigan Supreme Court granted discretionary review and affirmed the Court of Appeals in part and reversed in part.10 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.11
Whether a State, or an official of the State while acting in his or her official capacity, is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983?12
Section 1983 provides that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects any citizen to the deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured.13 A State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.14 Neither are state officials acting in their official capacities.15
No. Ray Will filed suit in Michigan Circuit Court and later in the Michigan Court of Claims against the Department of State Police and the Director of State Police in his official capacity.16 He alleged that he was denied a promotion to data systems analyst because his brother had been a student activist subject to a red squad file.17 The Michigan Supreme Court held that neither the State nor its official acting in official capacity qualified as a person under § 1983.18
The Supreme Court affirms this conclusion.19 The statute's text does not clearly include States.20 The legislative history shows no intent to override sovereign immunity.21 The Dictionary Act does not supply the necessary clear statement to alter the federal-state balance.22
Neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, And Stevens
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that the Dictionary Act, passed shortly before § 1983, defined person to include bodies politic and corporate.24 A phrase understood at the time to encompass States.25 He argued that the legislative history and the statute's focus on action under color of state law confirm that Congress intended States to be subject to suit under § 1983.26
This is especially true in state court where the Eleventh Amendment poses no bar.27 The majority improperly imported an Eleventh Amendment clear-statement rule into ordinary statutory construction.28
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the State is the real party in interest in any official-capacity suit.29 The Court's own precedents recognize this when awarding prospective relief or attorney's fees against state officials.30 He contended that the fiction of suing officials should be unnecessary in state court.31
The long line of decisions treating States as accountable under § 1983 through their agents demonstrates that the State itself qualifies as a person when sued directly in its own courts.32