Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mitchell v. Forsyth

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureImmunityAppealabilityQualified ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityCollateral Order Doctrinequalified immunityabsolute immunity

Facts

In 1970, after the FBI learned that members of the ECCSL had discussed bombing heating tunnels linking federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and possibly kidnapping Henry Kissinger, Attorney General John Mitchell authorized a warrantless wiretap on William Davidon's phone. Mitchell stated that the tap's purpose was to gather intelligence in the interest of national security, and during the surveillance the Government intercepted three conversations between Davidon and Keith Forsyth. Forsyth later learned of the interception through a Government disclosure in unrelated criminal proceedings and then sued, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and Title III. The District Court held Mitchell was not absolutely immune, denied qualified immunity, and granted Forsyth summary judgment on liability; the Court of Appeals held the denial of qualified immunity was not immediately appealable.

Issue

Whether the Attorney General is absolutely immune from damages suits for actions taken in the interest of national security; whether a district court's denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable before final judgment; and whether Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity for authorizing the 1970 warrantless domestic-security wiretap.

Rule

The Attorney General is not absolutely immune from damages liability for allegedly unconstitutional conduct performed in carrying out national security functions. A district court's denial of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 under the collateral order doctrine. Under Harlow, an official is immune from suit for civil damages unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

🔒

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.

A federal housing official in Phoenix is sued for damages under the Constitution after ordering a surprise inspection program. The district court denies her summary-judgment motion for qualified immunity, ruling that even if all facts are as the official claims, the program violated a clearly established right.

May the official immediately appeal the denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?

Explanation. Yes. The majority held that a denial of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine to the extent it turns on an issue of law. Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability, so the protection is effectively lost if the case must proceed to trial.