Search results
Fitzgerald sought civil damages, and President Nixon argued that he was absolutely immune from suit for actions taken in his official capacity. The district and circuit courts rejected the president’s claim of immunity, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Respondent thereafter filed suit for damages in Federal District Court against various Defense Department officials and White House aides allegedly responsible for his dismissal. An amended complaint later named petitioner as a defendant.
In the recent case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the United States Supreme Court, for the first time, addressed the issue of the extent to which the President of the United States is entitled to immunity from civil actions.
In sum then Justice White argues that the Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald is doing much more than filling a gap or answering a question left unanswered by Butz. The Court, according to White, is doing nothing less than rejecting the two-tier approach to immunity first used in Sheuer, later applied to federal officials in Butz, and applied
Incorporating impact in planning, programming, and capability development "Security cooperation (SC) is a key component of U.S. national security strategy, a high priority in U.S. Department of Defense guidance, and a key mission of the U.S. Air Force (USAF). USAF…
Respondent thereafter filed suit for damages in Federal District Court against various Defense Department officials and White House aides allegedly responsible for his dismissal. An amended complaint later named petitioner as a defendant.
In Nion v. Fitzgerald,4 the Supreme Court applied the exception to hold that a President may not be held civilly liable for any actions taken within the scope of his office.
