Also known as: executive immunities from suit · presidential immunity · executive official immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional doctrine that shields the President from civil damages liability only for acts within the outer perimeter of official duties. The protection does not extend to unofficial or private conduct, including acts that occurred before the individual assumed office.
Journalist Dana Lee sued President Michael Ross for battery and emotional distress after an alleged assault that occurred ten years earlier when Ross worked as a media executive. Ross moved to dismiss on the ground that his current office barred the suit. The court denied the motion because the events involved purely private conduct unrelated to any presidential function.
Air Force analyst Ernest Fitzgerald sued former President Nixon after losing his job following congressional testimony critical of defense spending. Nixon sought absolute immunity for the dismissal decision. The court held that the protection covers only acts within the outer perimeter of presidential authority and does not bar suit for conduct falling outside that boundary.
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.
View caseWhite House aide Bryce Harlow faced a damages action after allegedly participating in the dismissal of an Air Force analyst who had testified before Congress. Harlow asserted absolute immunity as a presidential assistant. The court ruled that aides receive absolute immunity only for discretionary functions in especially sensitive national-security areas and otherwise face only qualified immunity.
In 1968, Ernest Fitzgerald, a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force, testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress that a new transport plane, the C-5A, was substantially over its projected cost. This testimony apparently embarrassed the Department of Defense and the Air Force. Shortly thereafter, Fitzgerald's job was abolished in a reorganization of the Air Force. Fitzgerald brought suit against a number of officials of the Executive Branch, including petitioners Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield. Fitzgerald alleged that Harlow and Butterfield had participated in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights by arranging to have him dismissed from his position in the Air Force in retaliation for his testimony. As evidence of Harlow's involvement, Fitzgerald relied on a series of conversations in which Harlow discussed Fitzgerald's dismissal with Air Force Secretary Robert Seamans. He also relied on a recorded conversation in which the President later voiced a tentative recollection that Harlow was "all for canning" Fitzgerald. As evidence against Butterfield, Fitzgerald cited a May 1969 White House memorandum. In it Butterfield claimed to have learned that Fitzgerald planned to "blow the whistle" on some "shoddy purchasing practices" by exposing these practices to public view. Fitzgerald also cited communications between Butterfield and Haldeman in December 1969 and January 1970 as evidence that Butterfield participated in the conspiracy to conceal his unlawful discharge and prevent his reemployment. Harlow asserted that Secretary Seamans had advised him that considerations of efficiency required Fitzgerald's removal by a reduction in force. Harlow had no reason to believe that a conspiracy existed. Butterfield stated that he was not involved in any decision concerning Fitzgerald's employment status until more than a month after the termination had been scheduled and announced publicly. Butterfield never communicated his views about Fitzgerald to any official of the Defense Department. The District Court denied the motions of Harlow and Butterfield for summary judgment based on absolute Presidential immunity or, alternatively, qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. Presidential immunity covers only official acts performed while in office. Pre-office private conduct falls outside that protection, so the suit may proceed in federal court.
Supporting sources
No. Immunity is functional and limited to official acts within the outer perimeter of presidential duties. Private conduct, even during the term, receives no absolute protection.
Supporting sources
No. Aides receive absolute immunity only when performing discretionary functions in especially sensitive areas of national concern closely tied to presidential decisionmaking. In all other official functions they receive only qualified immunity.
Supporting sources
No. Courts may manage scheduling and discovery through ordinary procedural tools, but they may not dismiss or stay the action on immunity grounds when the conduct is unofficial and pre-office.
Supporting sources
…subcommittee. The District Court denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ground of absolute presidential immunity. 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…