Probably not. There was a similar case, Dircks v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., No. 1:21-CV-00451-JMS-MG, 2022 WL 742435 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022), that involved a couple suing the Indiana Department of Child Services under similar 1st and 14th Amendment violations for CHINS removals. The federal court tossed the § 1983 suit because:
DCS is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is a state agency and is not a person that can be liable for money damages under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989); Boston v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 2021 WL 795452, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 2, 2021). Furthermore, as a state agency, DCS enjoys immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Williams v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 2019 WL 3003906, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 9, 2019) (“For the purposes of Monell liability, DCS is a state agency and it is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the Court from exercising jurisdiction over it.”). This immunity applies to agencies of the state, regardless of the form of relief sought. MCI Tel. Corp. v. Ill. Bell. Tel. Co., 222 F.3d 323, 336 (7th Cir. 2000).
Maybe it'd work if they sued indivdual people involved like social workers or school counselors, but then you'd run into the same qualified immunity problems that comes with suing cops.
Thanks; that's why I put it out there for someone who knows more than me.
Honestly, the whole concept of sovereign and qualified immunity seems convoluted and contradictory to me. In the case cited above the feds said they don't have jurisdiction over a state agency under the 11th Amendment, but I know the feds have gone after police agencies and state election agencies through federal court
Its all a huge mess, because of contradictory rulings based off of different constitutional provisions, and various state or federal laws. For example, states and the federal government have sovereign immunity unless they allow themselves to be sued. The feds have the federal tort claims act for that purpose. In addition, takings can be compensated under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. States are similar. You can sue state agents individually under § 1983 and federal agents under the similar Bivens actions. But that refers to actions in their individual capacity. When you complain of official actions, then qualified and absolute immunity come into play.
The federal suits are probably based off of various parts of the civil rights act of 1964, which is in my opinion, a wildly unconstitutional law. But SCOTUS lacks the balls to throw it out (well maybe Thomas might).
Probably not. There was a similar case, Dircks v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., No. 1:21-CV-00451-JMS-MG, 2022 WL 742435 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022), that involved a couple suing the Indiana Department of Child Services under similar 1st and 14th Amendment violations for CHINS removals. The federal court tossed the § 1983 suit because:
Maybe it'd work if they sued indivdual people involved like social workers or school counselors, but then you'd run into the same qualified immunity problems that comes with suing cops.
Thanks; that's why I put it out there for someone who knows more than me.
Honestly, the whole concept of sovereign and qualified immunity seems convoluted and contradictory to me. In the case cited above the feds said they don't have jurisdiction over a state agency under the 11th Amendment, but I know the feds have gone after police agencies and state election agencies through federal court
Its all a huge mess, because of contradictory rulings based off of different constitutional provisions, and various state or federal laws. For example, states and the federal government have sovereign immunity unless they allow themselves to be sued. The feds have the federal tort claims act for that purpose. In addition, takings can be compensated under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. States are similar. You can sue state agents individually under § 1983 and federal agents under the similar Bivens actions. But that refers to actions in their individual capacity. When you complain of official actions, then qualified and absolute immunity come into play.
The federal suits are probably based off of various parts of the civil rights act of 1964, which is in my opinion, a wildly unconstitutional law. But SCOTUS lacks the balls to throw it out (well maybe Thomas might).
They're generally based off of state law, and vary state by state. Here's Texas's law for example.