Petitioner
President Richard M. Nixon
Respondent
Ernest Fitzgerald
Petitioner's Claim
That a president should not be held liable for civil damages resulting from the termination of a Pentagon employee.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Herbert J. Miller, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John E. Nolan, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 June 1982
Decision
That a president possesses absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for actionstaken in the course of his official duties.
Significance
Nixon v. Fitzgerald established the principle of "absolute immunity" for actions taken by a president in the course of his official duties. The Court decided that the presidency was a special office worthy of special protections against civil lawsuits.
Ernest Fitzgerald was a cost analyst employed by the U.S. Air Force. In the final months of the Johnson administration, Fitzgerald testified before Congress about serious cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane. Officials at theDefense Department grew angry over Fitzgerald's "whistleblowing" and worked to devise a plan to eliminate his position. When President Nixon came into office in 1969, Fitzgerald was in fact removed--ostensibly as part of a money saving reorganization plan. In a news conference, however, President Nixon publicly admitted responsibility for Fitzgerald's removal--a statement he later retracted. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission, claiming hisdismissal came in retaliation for his embarrassing testimony on Capitol Hill. The commission did not find evidence of a political plot, but reinstated Fitzgerald on the grounds that he was removed for personal reasons. In 1982, Fitzgerald proceeded to sue former President Nixon for damages.
The Lower Court Decisions
The lower federal courts dismissed Fitzgerald's action on the grounds that the president is immune from such suits. However, the court of appeals rejectedNixon's claim of immunity. Nixon then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald raised many important questions about the nature and extent of presidential immunity: questions concerning whether a presidentshould be immune from actions taken in the course of performing his or her official duties, and whether this immunity should be absolute, or if there should be limits to when and if a president can be sued. Moreover, there were questions as to whether the claim to immunity was to be derived from the officeof the president itself or from the functions the president performs. That is, whether some actions could be considered immune and others not immune, or whether a president simply should be shielded from all suits simply because ofthe distraction they might create. These were the questions the Supreme Court wrestled with in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
The Court's Decision
On 24 June 1982 the Supreme Court handed down its decision. By a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with Nixon, ruling that a president is immune from all civil suits deriving from his actions as president. Justice Powell wrote the majority opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O'Connor.
The majority rested its decision not on the text of the Constitution but on "the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers" and U.S. history. It afforded the president a unique status that distinguishes him from all other executive officials. The president must often deal with matters that are highly sensitive and sure to arouse passions among citizens. It is for just this reason, Justice Powell contended, that he must be shielded from lawsuits:
In keeping with the theme of the "special" nature of the office of the presidency, Powell argued that the prominence of the president's office made him anunusually easy target for lawsuits:
Finally, the majority rejected the argument that a president's immunity should derive from the functions he or she performs and not from the office itself. If this rule were adopted, the majority argued, every action a president takes would be subject to allegations that it was unlawful. As a result, "absolute immunity" would have no practical meaning.
The President Above the Law?
The majority opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald provoked an especially strong dissent. Justice White, joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, andJustice Brennan, attacked the Court's opinion for placing "the President above the law":
Justice Powell anticipated this argument and countered it by listing the manyother ways--besides civil lawsuit--that a president may be held accountablefor his or her actions. These included impeachment, scrutiny by the press, Congressional oversight, and incentives to avoid misconduct such as the desireto win reelection or secure one's historical reputation.
In a separate case, Harlow and Butterfield v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Court refused to extend the immunity to Nixon's aides, who had carried out hisorders to remove Fitzgerald from his position.
Related Cases
President Richard M. Nixon
Respondent
Ernest Fitzgerald
Petitioner's Claim
That a president should not be held liable for civil damages resulting from the termination of a Pentagon employee.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Herbert J. Miller, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John E. Nolan, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 June 1982
Decision
That a president possesses absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for actionstaken in the course of his official duties.
Significance
Nixon v. Fitzgerald established the principle of "absolute immunity" for actions taken by a president in the course of his official duties. The Court decided that the presidency was a special office worthy of special protections against civil lawsuits.
Ernest Fitzgerald was a cost analyst employed by the U.S. Air Force. In the final months of the Johnson administration, Fitzgerald testified before Congress about serious cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane. Officials at theDefense Department grew angry over Fitzgerald's "whistleblowing" and worked to devise a plan to eliminate his position. When President Nixon came into office in 1969, Fitzgerald was in fact removed--ostensibly as part of a money saving reorganization plan. In a news conference, however, President Nixon publicly admitted responsibility for Fitzgerald's removal--a statement he later retracted. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission, claiming hisdismissal came in retaliation for his embarrassing testimony on Capitol Hill. The commission did not find evidence of a political plot, but reinstated Fitzgerald on the grounds that he was removed for personal reasons. In 1982, Fitzgerald proceeded to sue former President Nixon for damages.
The Lower Court Decisions
The lower federal courts dismissed Fitzgerald's action on the grounds that the president is immune from such suits. However, the court of appeals rejectedNixon's claim of immunity. Nixon then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald raised many important questions about the nature and extent of presidential immunity: questions concerning whether a presidentshould be immune from actions taken in the course of performing his or her official duties, and whether this immunity should be absolute, or if there should be limits to when and if a president can be sued. Moreover, there were questions as to whether the claim to immunity was to be derived from the officeof the president itself or from the functions the president performs. That is, whether some actions could be considered immune and others not immune, or whether a president simply should be shielded from all suits simply because ofthe distraction they might create. These were the questions the Supreme Court wrestled with in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
The Court's Decision
On 24 June 1982 the Supreme Court handed down its decision. By a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with Nixon, ruling that a president is immune from all civil suits deriving from his actions as president. Justice Powell wrote the majority opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O'Connor.
The majority rested its decision not on the text of the Constitution but on "the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers" and U.S. history. It afforded the president a unique status that distinguishes him from all other executive officials. The president must often deal with matters that are highly sensitive and sure to arouse passions among citizens. It is for just this reason, Justice Powell contended, that he must be shielded from lawsuits:
Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.
In keeping with the theme of the "special" nature of the office of the presidency, Powell argued that the prominence of the president's office made him anunusually easy target for lawsuits:
In view of the visibility ofhis office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the President would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages. Cognizanceof this personal vulnerability frequently could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment not only of the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.
Finally, the majority rejected the argument that a president's immunity should derive from the functions he or she performs and not from the office itself. If this rule were adopted, the majority argued, every action a president takes would be subject to allegations that it was unlawful. As a result, "absolute immunity" would have no practical meaning.
The President Above the Law?
The majority opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald provoked an especially strong dissent. Justice White, joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, andJustice Brennan, attacked the Court's opinion for placing "the President above the law":
A President acting within the outer boundaries of what Presidents normally do may, without liability, deliberately cause serious injury to any number of citizens even though he knows his conduct violates a statute or tramples on the constitutional rights of those who are injured.
Justice Powell anticipated this argument and countered it by listing the manyother ways--besides civil lawsuit--that a president may be held accountablefor his or her actions. These included impeachment, scrutiny by the press, Congressional oversight, and incentives to avoid misconduct such as the desireto win reelection or secure one's historical reputation.
In a separate case, Harlow and Butterfield v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Court refused to extend the immunity to Nixon's aides, who had carried out hisorders to remove Fitzgerald from his position.
Related Cases
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978).
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
User Comments Add a comment…