Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Federal Courts

491 U.S. 58 (1989)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsstates as persons under 1983§ 1983personStateofficial capacityarms of the StateEleventh Amendment

Facts

Ray Will alleged that he was denied a promotion with the Michigan Department of State Police for an improper reason related to his brother's student activism and a 'red squad' file. He sued in Michigan state court under § 1983, naming the Department of State Police and the Director of State Police in his official capacity. A state administrative body found that respondents had refused to promote him because of 'partisan considerations,' and the trial judge concluded that petitioner had established a federal constitutional violation. The legal dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the state agency and the state official in his official capacity were 'persons' subject to suit under § 1983.

Issue

Is a State a 'person' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983? Is a state official sued in his or her official capacity likewise a 'person' under § 1983?

Rule

A State is not a 'person' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Likewise, state officials acting in their official capacities are not 'persons' under § 1983, because an official-capacity suit is no different from a suit against the State itself.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Lena Ortiz filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in California state court against the State of California, alleging that a state licensing rule violated her federal due process rights and caused her financial loss. California has not been dismissed on immunity grounds; the only issue raised is whether it is a proper defendant under § 1983.

How should the court rule on whether California is a proper § 1983 defendant?

Explanation. The majority held that a State is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. That conclusion applies even when the suit is brought in state court, because the statutory "person" question is distinct from Eleventh Amendment immunity. The fact that the alleged wrong is state action or that the forum is a state court does not make the State a person under § 1983.