Reported / Citable
Background
Former University of Washington employees were fired for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination policy and sued under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court treated the university as an arm of Washington State and therefore not a person subject to damages liability under section 1983.
While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court clarified the arm-of-state analysis. The Ninth Circuit considered whether its prior three-factor test survived and how the factors should now be weighted.
The Court’s Holding
The panel affirmed. Its three factors remain: whether state law created a legally independent entity, whether the state is formally liable for the entity’s debts and judgments, and how much control the state exercises. The Supreme Court’s clarification makes the first factor most important and the control factor least important.
Applying that hierarchy, the court held that the University of Washington is an arm of the state and cannot be sued as a person under section 1983. Companion nonprecedential claims were resolved separately.
Key Takeaways
- The legal form and state-law treatment of a public entity now carry the greatest weight.
- Formal responsibility for debts and judgments remains important but is not the sole inquiry.
- Operational control has reduced relative weight.
- Public-entity status should be evaluated before investing heavily in section 1983 merits discovery.
Why It Matters
Although the defendant is in Washington, the refined test governs Ninth Circuit litigation and can affect California public universities, authorities, and state-created bodies. Counsel should begin immunity analysis with enabling statutes and state-court characterizations of institutional independence.