The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

On November 13, 1968, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a management analyst in the Department of the Air Force, testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee of the U. S. Congress regarding $2 billion in unexpected costs associated with the C5-A transport plane along with its technical difficulties. In January 1970, he was fired, and he believed his dismissal was in retaliation for his testimony. Fitzgerald sued presidential aides Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield for civil damages and claimed they were involved in a conspiracy that resulted in his wrongful dismissal. Both Harlow and Butterfield claimed to have no knowledge of any conspiracy and asserted that their actions surrounding this issue were undertaken in good faith. Harlow and Butterfield moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. The district court also found them ineligible for immunity. They appealed the denial of immunity to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without issuing an opinion.

Questions

  1. Are presidential aides entitled to immunity from civil suits?

Conclusions

  1. Yes. Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the opinion of the 8-1 majority. The Court held that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity but not absolute immunity. Absolute immunity is only available for specific functions that require a total shield from liability. The Court held that qualified immunity was necessary for the government officials to carry out their jobs and that the courts could adequately determine whether an action falls within the scope of qualified immunity based on whether the official knew or should have known that his/her actions would violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote that the “knew or should have known” standard the majority established would often require discovery to determine what a defendant actually knew. He argued that the issues surrounding discovery of such evidence could be handled by a trial judge pending any motion for summary judgment made on the basis of qualified immunity. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the concurrence.

    Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Justice Byron R. White, Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred, but emphasized that Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a similar case where they dissented, was wrongly decided.

    Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote a dissent where he argued that, based on the Court’s previous decisions that granted absolute immunity to legislative aides, presidential aides should also receive absolute immunity. He argued that the degree of immunity for a government official should depend on that official’s function rather than that official’s place in the hierarchy. Since the President relies on his aides to perform the duties of his office, the aides should be considered “alter egos” for legal purposes and entitled to the same absolute immunity. Without that assurance of immunity for aides, the President’s functionality would greatly diminish.