Our Work

In a case concerning whether a federal statute, the Westfall Act, precludes all state-law damages actions against federal officials, even those based on federal constitutional violations, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief explaining that the U.S. Constitution’s structure envisions an active role for state laws and institutions in redressing the constitutional violations of federal actors, and, historically, state-level causes of action were the primary way for individuals to recover for injuries caused by such actors.

As concerns mount about the conduct of federal agents, the possible solution of state-created damages remedies for federal constitutional violations is gaining steam in states. It’s what Professor Akhil Amar once dubbed “converse § 1983.” As the State Democracy Research Initiative details, the core idea is simple: States can enact (or amend existing) civil rights statutes that allow damages suits against any person — including a federal officer — who violates federal constitutional rights. While there are some unanswered questions and likely hurdles, the historical pedigree and legal footing for such remedies is perhaps stronger than some skeptics might assume.

This Report describes the recently enacted mask ban in California and the proposed laws in other states. Under existing precedent, mask bans are neither clearly prohibited nor clearly permissible. This Report also provides an overview of other options states may have to address masking by federal law enforcement.

Victims of unconstitutional federal actions often have difficulty recovering money damages for their injuries. This Report discusses a potential remedial pathway that is beginning to garner interest among policymakers and litigants: state-created causes of action authorizing people to sue federal officials for damages.

This report explores when states can or cannot pursue prosecutions against federal officials and what that has looked like in practice. This practice stretches back to at least the early 1800s, but it comes with a mixed track record.

Governmental power in the United States has always been divided between the federal government and state governments, each providing a check on the other. As states face controversial federal government actions, they are pursuing or considering an array of options in response.

In a series of ongoing projects, we are examining some of the potential tools states have to help counter federal abuses of power. These studies aim to provide in-depth legal background and context for anyone interested in learning more about how our federalist system creates space for and seeks to manage confrontations between states and the federal government. Questions considered include whether states prosecute federal officials, states can create damages remedies against federal officials, and states can prohibit federal law enforcement from masking on the job?