Hamdi A. Mohamud v. Heather Weyker, St. Paul Police Officer

Section 1983 guarantees that “[e]very person” who violates an individual’s constitutional rights “under color of any statute, ordinance, custom, or usage, of any State * * * shall be liable.” 42 U.S.C. 1983. Respondent St. Paul Police Officer Heather Weyker framed Petitioner Hamdi Mohamud for a crime, causing Mohamud (then a minor) to spend two years in prison. At the time, Weyker was cross-deputized with narrow federal authority, so Mohamud asserted causes of action against her under both Section 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Eighth Circuit recognized that Mohamud’s rights were clearly established, but it held in 2020 that she may not sue under Bivens. In its opinion below, the Eighth Circuit held that Mohamud may not sue under Section 1983, either. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split over how to apply this Court’s state-action doctrine and left Mohamud remediless. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a local police officer wielding both state and federal authority can act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2. If not, whether a local police officer acting with federal authority is subject to a Bivens cause of action for Fourth Amendment violations she commits in the common and recurrent sphere of domestic law enforcement.