{"title":"Custom and Usage as Action Under Color of State Law: An Essay on the Forgotten Terms of Section 1983","authors":"G. Rutherglen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.353364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Section 1983 is the general federal civil rights statute which creates a cause of action for any deprivation of federal rights \"under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state.\" The terms \"custom\" and \"usage\" in this context have a meaning that, if it was once known, has been forgotten, and to the extent that it resembles the ordinary meaning of these terms contrasts sharply with the other sources of state law listed in the statute. If these terms are given their ordinary meaning, then a wide range of private action would suddenly come within the coverage of the statute, allowing claims to be brought against private individuals and institutions for actions taken systematically to deny federal rights. This article tries to determine why the statute has not received this interpretation, and indeed, why the terms \"custom\" and \"usage\" have received virtually no interpretation at all in current decisions under section 1983. The meaning of these terms is analyzed in four different periods: in the era before section 1983 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871; in the debates over this act and over similar provisions in other civil rights acts passed during Reconstruction; in judicial decisions in the late nineteenth century invalidating or narrowly interpreting these acts; and in judicial decisions in the twentieth century that otherwise expanded the scope of the section 1983. In each of these periods, developments in legal doctrine are set against the background of jurisprudential views of the appropriate role of custom as a source of law. The article concludes by examining the implications of this historical inquiry for the current scope of civil rights laws, and particularly for the power of Congress under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"89 1","pages":"925"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.353364","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Section 1983 is the general federal civil rights statute which creates a cause of action for any deprivation of federal rights "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state." The terms "custom" and "usage" in this context have a meaning that, if it was once known, has been forgotten, and to the extent that it resembles the ordinary meaning of these terms contrasts sharply with the other sources of state law listed in the statute. If these terms are given their ordinary meaning, then a wide range of private action would suddenly come within the coverage of the statute, allowing claims to be brought against private individuals and institutions for actions taken systematically to deny federal rights. This article tries to determine why the statute has not received this interpretation, and indeed, why the terms "custom" and "usage" have received virtually no interpretation at all in current decisions under section 1983. The meaning of these terms is analyzed in four different periods: in the era before section 1983 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871; in the debates over this act and over similar provisions in other civil rights acts passed during Reconstruction; in judicial decisions in the late nineteenth century invalidating or narrowly interpreting these acts; and in judicial decisions in the twentieth century that otherwise expanded the scope of the section 1983. In each of these periods, developments in legal doctrine are set against the background of jurisprudential views of the appropriate role of custom as a source of law. The article concludes by examining the implications of this historical inquiry for the current scope of civil rights laws, and particularly for the power of Congress under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
期刊介绍:
The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.