Also known as:absolute immunities · absolute immunity doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A complete exemption from civil liability afforded to certain government officials for acts performed within the scope of their official duties. The protection applies regardless of malice or bad faith and covers judges for judicial acts, legislators for legislative acts, prosecutors for prosecutorial acts, and the President for acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibilities. Presidential aides receive it only when performing discretionary functions in sensitive areas of national concern closely tied to presidential decisionmaking.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Aide's National Security Directive
Deputy Director Harlan, a CIA official serving as a White House finance advisor, issued internal guidance directing federal banking regulators to restrict Ridge Equity accounts suspected of facilitating foreign wire transfers. The directive responded to a presidential order addressing a foreign financial crisis threatening U.S. markets. Ridge Equity sued Harlan personally for violating clients' due-process rights. Because Harlan's actions involved discretionary judgment in a sensitive foreign-affairs area closely tied to presidential decisionmaking, the court dismissed the suit on absolute immunity grounds.
President's Retaliatory Dismissal
President Nixon directed the dismissal of Air Force analyst Ernest Fitzgerald after Fitzgerald testified before Congress about cost overruns. Fitzgerald sued the former President for damages, claiming the dismissal was retaliatory. The conduct fell within the outer perimeter of presidential authority. The court held that Nixon enjoyed absolute immunity from the civil damages action.
Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald457 U.S. 731 (1982)
In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion.
Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred.
Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony.
At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.
A government witness testified before a grand jury. After the testimony, prosecutors brought related charges. The witness moved to dismiss, asserting absolute immunity. The court ruled that the protection did not confer the absolute civil immunity that shields officials performing judicial or legislative functions.
Legislators' Enactment of Ordinance
City council members enacted ordinances restricting animal sacrifice after receiving complaints from constituents. A religious organization sued the individual council members for damages, alleging the ordinances violated free-exercise rights. The council members moved to dismiss on immunity grounds. Because the enactment of ordinances constituted legislative acts, the court granted absolute immunity and dismissed the damages claims against the members.
Council Members' Legislative Vote
Members of the Hialeah city council voted to adopt resolutions and ordinances limiting religious animal sacrifice. A church sued the individual council members under section 1983 for monetary relief. The members asserted absolute immunity. The court held that the votes were legislative acts protected by absolute immunity from damages liability.
Federal Agents' Search Conduct
Federal narcotics agents conducted a warrantless search of an apartment and arrested the occupant. The occupant later filed a Bivens action seeking damages for alleged Fourth Amendment violations. The agents moved to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds. The court held that the agents performed discretionary functions but were entitled only to qualified immunity, not the absolute immunity reserved for judges, legislators, and the President.
4 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Which officials receive absolute immunity from civil damages?
Judges receive it for judicial acts, legislators for legislative acts, prosecutors for prosecutorial acts, and the President for acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibilities. Presidential aides receive it only when performing discretionary functions in sensitive areas of national concern closely tied to presidential decisionmaking.
Supporting sources
Does absolute immunity protect officials from criminal prosecution?
No. Absolute immunity shields officials only from civil damages liability for official acts. Officials remain subject to criminal prosecution and professional discipline for the same conduct.
What functions receive only qualified immunity instead?
Administrative, executive, and ministerial functions receive only qualified immunity. Examples include a judge's decision to fire a probation officer and an attorney general's authorization of a warrantless wiretap.
Supporting sources
Does the First Amendment petition clause confer absolute immunity from defamation suits?
No. Statements made in petitions to the government receive no absolute immunity from defamation liability. A plaintiff may recover if the statements were made with actual malice under the New York Times standard.
Supporting sources
457 U.S. 731 (1982)
…The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for acts within his "outer perimeter" of his authority, but that the President is not entitled to such immunity for acts alleged to be in violation of clearly…