Case Explained: NILSEN, ET AL. V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-13 Docket: 2:23-cv-01498- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the University of Washington (UW) in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by former employees terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The panel held that UW is an “arm of the state” and therefore not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, rendering it immune from liability for the alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The court applied a refined three-factor test for determining whether an entity is an arm of the state, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.* (2026) clarified but did not overrule the Ninth Circuit’s prior en banc test from *Kohn v. State Bar of California*. Under this rebalanced standard, the factors are weighted as follows: (1) whether the state intended to create a legally independent entity, shown by the entity’s form and treatment under state law (bearing the most weight); (2) whether the state is formally liable for the entity’s debts or judgments; and (3) the degree of control the state exercises over the entity (bearing the least weight). Applying this test, the court found that Washington State did not intend to create a legally independent entity because UW lacks corporate form under current state law, is statutorily classified as a state agency subject to various state obligations, and was created by statute rather than charter. The second factor regarding formal liability was deemed neutral, as while UW maintains a self-insurance fund, the state has not disclaimed all formal liability for its debts. The third factor weighed slightly in favor of state arm status due to significant state oversight, though the court noted this factor is generally less probative. Consequently, because UW is an arm of the state, it cannot be sued under § 1983. The practical consequence is that the plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims against the University of Washington are dismissed with prejudice on the merits of immunity, and the judgment in favor of the university is affirmed. The panel noted that claims against individual defendants were addressed in a separate memorandum disposition. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.