Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 731 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages liability for all official acts taken within the 'outer perimeter' of his authority.
Facts:
- A. Ernest Fitzgerald was a civilian management analyst for the Department of the Air Force.
- In November 1968, Fitzgerald testified before a congressional subcommittee about significant cost overruns, approximating $2 billion, on the C-5A transport plane.
- In January 1970, Fitzgerald was terminated from his position during an Air Force reorganization and reduction in force that eliminated his job.
- An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield stated that Fitzgerald must be given 'very low marks in loyalty' and recommended that '[w]e should let him bleed, for a while at least.'
- At a press conference on January 31, 1973, President Richard Nixon assumed personal responsibility for Fitzgerald's dismissal, stating 'I approved it.'
- One day later, the White House press office issued a retraction, claiming President Nixon had confused Fitzgerald with another former employee and had not been personally involved in the decision.
Procedural Posture:
- A. Ernest Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission, which found his dismissal was procedurally improper and recommended his reinstatement with backpay.
- Fitzgerald filed a lawsuit for civil damages in the U.S. District Court against several Defense Department officials and unnamed White House aides.
- The District Court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal against most defendants but reversed as to White House aide Alexander Butterfield, remanding the case for further proceedings.
- Following remand and discovery, Fitzgerald filed an amended complaint naming former President Richard Nixon as a defendant.
- Nixon filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting a defense of absolute Presidential immunity.
- The District Court denied the motion, ruling that Nixon was not entitled to absolute immunity.
- Nixon filed a collateral appeal of the immunity ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which summarily dismissed the appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue of Presidential immunity.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President of the United States have absolute immunity from civil damages liability for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his official duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. This immunity is a functionally mandated incident of the President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers. Due to the singular importance and sensitivity of the President's duties, diverting his energies with private lawsuits would pose unique risks to the effective functioning of government. The President, as a highly visible target, would be vulnerable to countless suits, which could distract him from public duties and dampen the ardor required to make difficult decisions fearlessly. This absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of the President's official responsibility, and alternative remedies like impeachment and political checks serve as sufficient protection against misconduct.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, Presidential immunity is mandated by the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and is not merely a common law or public policy interpretation. Allowing civil damages suits would inevitably lead to judicial scrutiny of Executive Branch decision-making, harassing the President and inhibiting the independent functioning of the office. The need to prevent large-scale judicial invasion of the Executive function outweighs the need for private redress, just as it does for members of Congress, judges, and prosecutors who also have absolute immunity for their official functions. This holding places the President on essentially the same footing as other officials with absolute immunity and does not place him 'above the law.'
Dissenting - Justice White
No, the President should not be absolutely immune but should instead be subject to the same functional immunity analysis as other officials, which would likely result in qualified immunity. Attaching absolute immunity to the office, rather than to specific functions, places the President above the law, reverting to the monarchical notion that 'the King can do no wrong.' The Court has consistently applied a functional approach to immunity for judges, prosecutors, and legislators, none of whom receive blanket immunity for every official act. The majority's decision is a policy choice, not a legal one, as historical and constitutional sources provide no support for such a broad, office-wide immunity.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. Joining Justice White's dissent, this opinion asserts that no person, including the President, is absolutely above the law. The majority's reasoning is inconsistent because it grounds immunity in the separation of powers yet suggests Congress might be able to create liability. Furthermore, the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted due to a settlement agreement between the parties that was disclosed late and resembled a 'wager on the outcome of the case,' meaning no true case or controversy existed.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the President as unique among all government officials by affording the office absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts. It decisively prioritizes the uninhibited functioning of the executive branch over an individual's right to a judicial remedy for alleged constitutional or statutory violations by the President. This ruling created a significant barrier to private lawsuits against Presidents, shifting the primary accountability mechanisms to the political realm, such as impeachment and elections. The 'outer perimeter' standard is broad, leaving future courts to define its limits and creating a high standard for plaintiffs attempting to argue a President's actions were purely personal and outside his official duties.
Unlock the full brief for Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald