Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTortsofficial immunityqualified immunitypresidential aidesqualified immunityabsolute immunitypresidential aides

Facts

Fitzgerald sued Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield for civil damages, alleging they participated as senior White House aides in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights in connection with his dismissal and later concealment of that dismissal. Fitzgerald relied on conversations and memoranda suggesting Harlow discussed Fitzgerald's firing and Butterfield reported Fitzgerald intended to "blow the whistle" and later advised against giving him another administration job. Harlow and Butterfield denied wrongdoing, asserted they acted in good faith, and argued years of discovery had produced no direct evidence that they caused Fitzgerald injury. They sought summary judgment on immunity grounds.

Issue

Whether senior aides and advisers to the President are entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages suits for official acts, and if not, what qualified-immunity standard applies to such officials. The Court also considered whether the qualified-immunity standard should be reformulated to permit dismissal of insubstantial suits before trial.

Rule

Presidential aides generally are entitled only to qualified immunity, not blanket absolute immunity, unless the official shows that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability and that he was performing that protected function when he committed the challenged act. Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known; bare allegations of malice do not suffice to subject them to trial or broad discovery, and until the threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Leah Moreno served as a senior domestic-policy adviser in Washington, D.C. A discharged federal analyst sued Leah for civil damages, alleging she urged the analyst's removal in retaliation for protected speech. Leah argues she is absolutely immune because she worked in the White House and advised the President daily.

How should the court rule on Leah's claim of absolute immunity?

Explanation. The majority rejected blanket absolute immunity for all presidential aides. The Court used a functional approach: executive officials generally receive qualified immunity, and an aide seeking absolute immunity must justify it by reference to a special sensitive function, not merely high station or closeness to the President. Thus Leah cannot obtain absolute immunity solely because she was a senior White House adviser.