Custom and Usage as Action Under Color of State Law: An Essay on the Forgotten Terms of Section 1983

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
G. Rutherglen
{"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.
习惯和习惯作为州法色彩下的行为:评1983年第1节被遗忘的条款
第1983节是联邦民事权利的总则,它为“以任何州的任何法规、条例、规章、习俗或习惯为名义”剥夺联邦权利创造了诉讼理由。在这种情况下,“习惯”和“用法”这两个术语所具有的含义,如果曾经为人所知,就已经被遗忘了,并且就其与这些术语的通常含义相似的程度而言,与成文法中列出的其他州法渊源形成鲜明对比。如果这些术语被赋予其通常的含义,那么广泛的私人诉讼将突然进入该法规的覆盖范围,允许对个人和机构提出索赔,因为他们采取了系统地否认联邦权利的行动。本条试图确定为什么规约没有得到这种解释,事实上,为什么“习惯”和“用法”这两个词在根据第1983条作出的现行决定中几乎没有得到任何解释。在四个不同的时期对这些术语的含义进行了分析:在1983条作为1871年民权法案的一部分颁布之前的时代;在对该法案的辩论中以及对重建时期通过的其他民权法案中类似条款的辩论中;在19世纪后期的司法判决中,这些行为无效或被狭义地解释;在20世纪的司法判决中扩大了1983年条款的范围。在每一个时期,法律学说的发展都是在习惯法作为法律渊源的适当作用的法理学观点的背景下进行的。文章最后考察了这一历史调查对当前民权法范围的影响,特别是对第十四修正案第5条规定的国会权力的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
0
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信