42 U.S.C.  1983
-claim is failure of state to follow provisions in federal programs
-states not persons within meaning of section
-so sue individuals – fiction under Ex Parte Young is that you’re suing the officer and not the state
-officials have qualified immunity – protected if reasonable belief in legality of action
-immunity protects states from damages (can’t sue if money comes out of state treasury – e.g., welfare benefits) but not injunctive relief
– 1983 applies to all laws of United States, not just equal rights statutes (See Maine v. Thiboutot (1980))
-Need federal law being violated and person acting under color state law
-Dissent (Powell): 1982 just protects civil rights
-this is consistent w/ fact that  1983 was passed under Congress’s section 5 power
-For federal statute to create rights, must be clear that condition is mandatory under grant program (See Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1981): bill of rights in statute about mentally disabled children that says care in least restrictive environment does not provide substantive rights)
-To have right under federal grant must show?
-statute benefits YOU
-Blessing test (See Blessing v. Freestone (1997): P can’t sue state for failure to carry out child support provisions b/c no intent to benefit P)
-right not vague and amorphous – judicially enforceable standard
-unambiguously imposes binding obligation
-no other indication in statute that Congress intended enforcement by other means (So can’t have exclusive means of enforcement)
-unambiguous statement of right (See Gonzaga v. Doe (2002): holding no right to sue for privacy violation under FERPA because statute doesn’t CREATE personal rights)
-Almost same standard for finding implied right of action (but don’t need to show intent to create remedy)
-since Congress wants all interpretations of FERPA to be centralized, certainly couldn’t have wanted individual actions
-suggests that since state remedy available Congress doesn’t want to act – presumption almost to go after state remedies
-Blessing alone would argue for finding rights
-Gonzaga brings back to interpretation of  1983 as only creating remedies for violations of federal civil rights