Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

596 U. S. ___ (2022).  For the reasons explained below, we
affirm the Seventh Circuit’s judgment. 

II 
A 

As relevant here, §1983 provides that 

“[e]very  person  who,  under  color  of  any  statute,  ordi-
nance,  regulation,  custom,  or  usage,  of  any  State  or 
Territory  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  subjects,  or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or  other  person  within  the  jurisdiction  thereof  to  the 
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities se-
cured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to 
the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.” 

That  is,  any  person  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United
States  may  invoke  this  cause  of  action  against  any  other 
person who, acting “under color of ” state law, has deprived 
them  of  “any  rights,  privileges,  or  immunities  secured  by
the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 

We  have  been  asked  before  to  narrow  the  scope  of  this 
express authorization, i.e., to read “laws” to mean only “civil
rights or equal protection laws.”  Thiboutot, 448 U. S., at 6. 
We declined to do so, reasoning that a straightforward read-
ing of the “plain language” of §1983 is required.  Id., at 4. 
That should have been no surprise; “Congress attached no
modifiers to the phrase [‘and laws’].”  Ibid.
  Since Thiboutot, we have crafted a test for determining
whether a particular federal law actually secures rights for
§1983 purposes.  See Gonzaga, 536 U. S., at 283–285; Part 
III–B, infra.  But we have not previously doubted that any 
federal law can do so. 

—————— 
35.1. Subsequent references to Talevski encompass both Talevskis inso-
far as Ivanka is advancing Gorgi’s interests.