Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024)
11
Opinion of the Court
378 U. S., at 135; see also Home Telephone & Telegraph Co.
v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278, 287–288 (1913) (the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses “abuse by a state officer
. . . of the powers possessed”). Every §1983 suit alleges a
misuse of power, because no state actor has the authority
to deprive someone of a federal right. To misuse power,
however, one must possess it in the first place.
Where does the power come from? Section 1983 lists the
potential sources: “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage.” Statutes, ordinances, and regulations refer to
written law through which a State can authorize an official
to speak on its behalf. “Custom” and “usage” encompass
“persistent practices of state officials” that are “so permanent and well settled” that they carry “the force of law.”
Adickes, 398 U. S., at 167–168. So a city manager like
Freed would be authorized to speak for the city if written
law like an ordinance empowered him to make official announcements. He would also have that authority even in
the absence of written law if, for instance, prior city managers have purported to speak on its behalf and have been
recognized to have that authority for so long that the manager’s power to do so has become “permanent and well settled.” Id., at 168. And if an official has authority to speak
for the State, he may have the authority to do so on social
media even if the law does not make that explicit.
Determining the scope of an official’s power requires careful attention to the relevant statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage. In some cases, a grant of authority over
particular subject matter may reasonably encompass authority to speak about it officially. For example, state law
might grant a high-ranking official like the director of the
state department of transportation broad responsibility for
the state highway system that, in context, includes authority to make official announcements on that subject. At the
same time, courts must not rely on “ ‘excessively broad job
descriptions’ ” to conclude that a government employee is