## Facts

- Following campus unrest at Kent State University in early May 1970, the Governor of Ohio deployed the Ohio National Guard to the campus.
- On May 4, 1970, Guard members fired on students, killing four and wounding others.
- Representatives of the deceased students’ estates sued the Governor, the Adjutant General, National Guard officers and enlisted personnel, and the university president for money damages.
- The complaints alleged defendants, acting under color of state law, intentionally or recklessly caused an unnecessary Guard deployment and ordered or directed unlawful conduct that led to the shootings.
- The district court dismissed the actions before defendants answered and on a limited record, treating the suits as effectively against the State and barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, also concluding that executive immunity for the state officials was absolute.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a § 1983 damages action against state officials sued personally for alleged deprivations of federal rights under color of state law.
2. Whether state executive officials responding to civil disorder have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages liability, or only qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the Eleventh Amendment does not automatically bar damages actions against state officials when the claims seek to impose personal liability for unconstitutional conduct.
- The Court rejected absolute executive immunity for the Governor and other executive officials in this context, holding their immunity is qualified and varies with the official’s responsibilities and the circumstances.
- The Court concluded dismissal at the pleading stage on a sparse record was premature because plaintiffs had not been given an opportunity to develop proof supporting the allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 suit for money damages may proceed against state officials in their personal capacities even when the alleged acts were taken under color of state law; such a suit is not necessarily treated as an action against the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes.
- State executive officials are not categorically immune from § 1983 damages liability; they may assert qualified immunity for discretionary acts.
- Qualified immunity for executive officials depends on the scope of the official’s duties and the circumstances at the time, including whether the official acted in good faith with a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of the conduct based on the information then available.
- Whether qualified immunity applies is commonly fact-dependent and should not be resolved solely on bare pleadings where the record is undeveloped.

## Conclusion

The Court held that personal-capacity § 1983 damages claims against Ohio officials arising from the Kent State shootings were not barred at the outset by the Eleventh Amendment and that the Governor and other executive officials were entitled only to qualified, not absolute, immunity, requiring further proceedings to develop the facts.


Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)