{
  "id": "RL31569",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31569",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101372,
      "date": "2002-09-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:04:47.996941",
      "title": "Section 1983 and the Spending Power: Enforcement of Federal \"Laws\"",
      "summary": "In  Gonzaga University v. Doe , the Supreme Court in 2002 held that a student may\n not sue a\nprivate university for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to enforce provisions of the Family\nEducational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Section 1983, derived from the Civil Rights\nAct of 1871, authorizes suits against state officials and others acting \"under color\" of state law for\ndeprivation of rights derived from the \"Constitution and laws\" of the United States. In 1980, in \n Maine v. Thiboutot , the Court interpreted section 1983 broadly to apply to all federal\n\"laws,\" not just\ncivil rights laws. Since 1980, the Court has been divided over how to apply section 1983 to rights\nderived from federal spending statutes that provide federal money to states on condition that states\nuse the money to implement federal programs and policies. The general rule, applicable until 1992,\nrecognized a presumption that individual rights created by spending statutes are enforceable in\nsection 1983 actions. The Court in  Gonzaga  confirmed a 1992 interpretation, based on\nthe\ncontractual nature of Congress's spending power, that imposes a clear statement rule and reverses\nthe presumption. Under  Gonzaga , no right to sue under section 1983 is created unless\nCongress does\nso in clear and unambiguous terms. A statutory decision with strong constitutional underpinnings,\n Gonzaga  can be viewed as an important element of the Court's federalism jurisprudence. \nThe case\nalso represents a victory for Chief Justice Rehnquist, who has consistently opposed broad\napplicability of section 1983, and now apparently has a majority that supports his position. The\nimplications for congressional drafting are clear: if Congress wishes to create rights in private\nindividuals and make those rights enforceable, it should do so explicitly.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31569",
          "sha1": "e225a2b2094debf6f4a91c10f6bd4a1ae32e63b5",
          "filename": "files/20020912_RL31569_e225a2b2094debf6f4a91c10f6bd4a1ae32e63b5.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020912_RL31569_e225a2b2094debf6f4a91c10f6bd4a1ae32e63b5.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}