&sq=&lang=&file=File:Question_book-new.svg){kind=small} | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2021) |
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (May 2021) |
In the United States Code, the term color of law describes and defines an action that has either a “mere semblance of legal right”, or the “pretense of right”, or the “appearance of right”, which adjusts and colors the law to the circumstance, whilst the apparently legal action is itself illegal.[1] In U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence, an action realized under color of law is an act realized by an official as if he or she were authorized to take the apparently legal action not authorized by statute or common law.[2]
The term color of law first was used in English statutory law in the 13th century, originating from the fact that the soldiers and officials of the Crown carried the flag and coat of arms of the sovereign to indicate that they were acting under the legitimate authority of the sovereign.[3] As a descriptor of official malfeasance, in the article “The Meaning of Under Color of Law” (1992), Steven L. Winter said that “through the first half of the nineteenth century, colore officii [official colors] was a common-law term of art referring to the illegal or [to the] unauthorized actions of governmental officials”, which the U.S. Congress applied in several laws, such as the authorization of federal officials to seek the removal of state-level criminal charges presented against them into the federal court system. [4]
- ^ Gifis, Steven H.Law Dictionary Fourth Edition, p. 86.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
DOJwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Winter, Steven L. The Meaning of “Under Color of” Law, 91 Michigan Law Review. 323, 326 (1992).
- ^ Steven L. Winter, The Meaning of "Under Color of" Law, 91 MICH. L. REV. 323, 326 (1992).