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.
Today's decision in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, post, p. 457 U. S. 800, makes clear that the President, were he subject to civil liability, could be held liable only for an action that he knew, or as an objective matter should have known, was illegal and a clear abuse of his authority and power. In such circumstances, the question that must be ...
Denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court held that respondent had stated triable causes of action under two federal statutes and the First Amendment, and that petitioner was not entitled to claim absolute Presidential immunity.
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.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Lewis Powell dealing with presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office.
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
Fitzgerald's dismissal occurred in the context of a departmental reorganization and reduction in force, in which his job was eliminated. In announcing the reorganization, the Air Force characterized the action as taken to promote economy and efficiency in the Armed Forces.
