speech rights.” (Appellate Br. for Pls.-Appellants at 64; Ex. to J.A., E-13-15, E-19-21.) Defendants contend that “[t]he College’s decision not to authorize payment was based on the fact that the student-organizers had contravened Acting President Minter’s decision to decline authorization for outside speakers” at the 1995 BSD event. (Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 41.) Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff may sue for constitutional violations committed by state actors. Although a government action alone may not violate the Constitution, it may nevertheless be a eon-stitutional tort if it is motivated in substantial part by a desire to punish an individual for the exercise of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Bd. of County Comm’rs, Wabaunsee County v.
holding that inmates allegation that guards destroyed his legal materials in retaliation for his filing of suits and grievances stated a cognizable first amendment claim recognizing first amendment retaliation right recognizing first amendment retaliation claim where official filed a disciplinary report following an inmates filing of a grievance holding unconstitutional the administrative search of personal belongings conducted in that case holding that correction officers misdirection of inmates personal belongings may constitute a claim of retaliation for exercise of first amendment rights