| Harlow v. Fitzgerald | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 30, 1981 Decided June 24, 1982 | |
| Full case name | Bryce Harlow, et al. v.A. Ernest Fitzgerald |
| Citations | 457U.S.800 (more) 102 S. Ct. 2727; 73L. Ed. 2d 396; 1982U.S. LEXIS 139 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead deserved qualified immunity. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Burger |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), was a case decided by theUnited States Supreme Court involving the doctrines ofqualified immunity andabsolute immunity.
Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald was a deputy for management systems in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He discovered $2 billion incost overruns and technical problems in the Lockheed C5-A program that had been concealed by the officials at the Pentagon. He testified before the Joint Economic Committee inCongress and was then blacklisted from roles of any significance.
Following the release of theWatergate tapes, Fitzgerald was mentioned by PresidentRichard Nixon, who boasted that he had been responsible for firing Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald filed a lawsuit against government officials claiming that he lost his position as a contractor with theUS Air Force because of hiswhistleblower testimony made before Congress in 1969.[1]Absolute immunity was claimed by the officials involved, including Nixon and several of his aides, which generated several additional cases that made their way to the Supreme Court. Nixon was named in the lawsuit but was found to have absolute immunity in his role as president, as decided inNixon v. Fitzgerald.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald examined whether that degree of immunity extended to the President's aides.
In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that government officials other than the President were generally entitled to qualified immunity. An official can obtain absolute immunity but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted."
Despite its immediate application to White House aides, the case is regarded as most important for its revision of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors, more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theBurger Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |