Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Federal Courts

457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtspresidential immunity (civil)Presidentabsolute immunitycivil damagesofficial actsouter perimeterseparation of powers

Facts

A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his Air Force job during a reorganization and later alleged that his dismissal was wrongful and connected to White House involvement. After discovery, Fitzgerald filed an amended complaint naming former President Richard Nixon as a defendant and seeking civil damages under the Constitution and two federal statutes for actions allegedly taken in Nixon's official capacity while President. The District Court held that Fitzgerald had stated triable causes of action and ruled that Nixon was not entitled to absolute presidential immunity. Nixon sought immediate review of that immunity ruling.

Issue

Whether a former President of the United States is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for actions allegedly taken in his official capacity while in office. Also, whether denial of that immunity was immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.

Rule

A former President is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. In addition, an interlocutory order denying a claim of absolute immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine when it presents a serious and unsettled question.

🔒

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.

After leaving office, former President Daniel Mercer is sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., for civil damages by Lena Ortiz, a senior employee of the Department of Energy. Ortiz alleges Mercer ordered a departmental restructuring that eliminated her position because she had publicly criticized agency spending. Mercer argues the alleged conduct concerned supervision of the Executive Branch.

Should Mercer receive absolute immunity from Ortiz’s damages claim?

Explanation. A former President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility. The majority held that courts should not defeat immunity by probing alleged illegality or retaliatory motive. Supervising executive-branch organization and management is within presidential responsibility, so the claim is barred.