The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 13, 2026, that the University of Washington (UW) is protected from civil rights lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment. This decision comes after a group of former employees claimed they were wrongfully terminated for not complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The ruling affects the former employees who sought legal recourse, emphasizing the limits of suing state entities under federal law.
The case, Nilsen v. University of Washington, was filed after a group of former employees, including Patricia Nilsen and Anna Sandi, were terminated for failing to comply with UW's vaccine policy, which was mandated by Washington's Governor Jay Inslee during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs alleged that their firings violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for civil rights violations. However, the district court ruled that UW, as an arm of the state, could not be sued under this statute, leading to the appeal.
The dispute began when Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14.1, requiring all state employees, including those in educational settings, to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The University of Washington implemented its own vaccination policy in accordance with this mandate. The plaintiffs received exemptions but were ultimately terminated when UW determined that accommodating them would impose undue hardship.
After their claims were dismissed in the district court, the former employees appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The court had to determine whether UW was an arm of the state, thus making it immune from lawsuits under § 1983. This case was influenced by a recent Supreme Court decision in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., which clarified how courts should assess whether an entity is an arm of the state.
The Ninth Circuit, led by Judge Richard C. Tallman, affirmed the district court's decision, stating, "We hold that UW is an arm of Washington State and thus is not a 'person' under § 1983." The court applied a three-factor test to determine UW's status, which considers the state's intent in creating the entity, the state's liability for the entity's debts, and the degree of control the state has over the entity. The court found that UW met the criteria for being classified as an arm of the state.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the first factor, which examines whether the state intended to create a legally independent entity, carries the most weight. The court noted that UW was not created as a corporation and lacks certain corporate powers, indicating that it is part of the state structure. The second factor regarding the state's liability for UW's debts was deemed neutral, while the third factor regarding state control slightly favored the conclusion that UW is an arm of the state.
This ruling has significant implications for future civil rights claims against state entities. By affirming UW's immunity, the court reinforces the principle that states and their agencies cannot be sued for civil rights violations under § 1983. This decision may deter similar lawsuits against public universities and other state entities, as they can invoke sovereign immunity to avoid litigation.
The outcome of this case may also influence other pending cases involving state entities and their compliance with state mandates. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections afforded to state institutions and the challenges individuals may face when seeking redress for alleged civil rights violations.
As of now, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. There are no related cases pending that directly challenge the Ninth Circuit's ruling, but the implications of this decision may resonate in future civil rights litigation involving state entities.