West Virginia Senate Bill SB757

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/14/25
• Refer: 3/14/25

Caption

Creating private cause of action for deprivation of right granted by state constitution or by state law

Summary

SB757 would create a new private cause of action in West Virginia for any person who, acting under color of a state statute, state rule, or county or municipal ordinance, deprives another person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the West Virginia Constitution or state law. The bill would allow an injured person to seek redress through an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding, and it expressly authorizes compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages. The bill also addresses relief against judicial officers by limiting injunctive relief for acts or omissions taken in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. In addition, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to the prevailing party, including expert fees, making the measure both a rights-enforcement bill and a fee-shifting provision for successful litigants.

Impact

If enacted, SB757 would add a new section to West Virginia’s civil remedies law, expanding the ability of individuals to sue state, county, and municipal actors for violations of rights protected by the state constitution or state law. It would create a state-law analogue to a civil rights enforcement mechanism, potentially increasing litigation exposure for government entities and officials and giving plaintiffs a direct damages remedy where one may not already exist. The bill would also affect court practice by authorizing fee awards and by limiting injunctive relief against judges in certain circumstances.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive among the sponsoring senators, who introduced the measure as a rights-protection and enforcement bill. The caption and purpose statement frame it as a mechanism to vindicate constitutional and statutory rights, suggesting a pro-civil-rights posture. No contrary testimony, amendments, or recorded votes are available here to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the scope of liability and the exposure of government actors to damages, attorney’s fees, and expert costs. State, county, and municipal officials could view the bill as expanding litigation risk and creating uncertainty about how broadly rights under state law may be enforced through private lawsuits. Another likely point of debate is the judicial-officer provision, which preserves some limits on injunctive relief but still raises questions about separation of powers and the proper remedies against judges. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific supporters or opponents cannot be identified from the available materials.