Supreme Court to Rule on Actions Required Before Filing Federal Civil Rights Claims

The Supreme Court kicked off its October term with a case involving the right of individuals to sue for federal civil rights violations before exhausting state remedies.

In Williams v. Washington, the court will decide whether the exhaustion of state administrative remedies is a prerequisite to bringing a federal civil rights claim in state court under section 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal statute allows individuals to sue for civil rights violations and applies to actions by state and local officials who misuse their authority.

A group of unemployment compensation benefits claimants in Alabama sued the state labor secretary in 2022 alleging they experienced extreme delays in the processing of their unemployment claims. They also say the Alabama Department of Labor failed to address their claims and appeals of decisions in a timely fashion in accordance with state law. They allege that under Section 1983, the labor department's administration of its unemployment scheme violated the petitioners' due process rights and their federal statutory rights under the Social Security Act of 1935.

The secretary argues that Alabama courts cannot hear this type of claim unless and until the petitioners exhaust all administrative remedies. This means that before they can sue in state court, petitioners must obtain a final decision from the labor department appeals tribunal, which did not happen. The secretary says that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a massive increase in claims and a staffing shortage, making it difficult to keep up with the claims process.

Petitioners rely on the case of Patsy v. Board of Regents, which held that failing to exhaust state remedies doesn't preclude a person from bringing a Section 1983 lawsuit, and that the legislative history of Section 1983 supports this position. Congress enacted Section 1983 as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to provide a federal remedy against state abuses of authority. The Patsy case stands for the proposition that requiring exhaustion of state remedies undermines the very purpose of Section 1983.

Sixteen states filed an amicus brief supporting Alabama. They say that the Alabama statute creating the state's unemployment compensation process did not confer judicial authority over the claims at issue.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Oct. 7 and will issue an opinion by the end of June 2025.

Susan Frederick is NCSL's senior federal affairs counsel.