Butz v. Economou

Petitioner
Earl L. Butz
Respondent
Arthur N. Economou
Petitioner's Claim
That federal officials acting within the scope of their authority have absolute immunity for allegedly unconstitutional acts.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Daniel M. Friedman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
David C. Buxbaum
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 June 1978
Decision
Federal executive officials are entitled only to qualified immunity in suitsbrought against them for unconstitutional acts.
Significance
While the decision in Butz v. Economou limited the immunity entitled to federal executive officials for constitutional violations, it also extendedabsolute immunity to various judicial and administrative officials within federal agencies.
Arthur N. Economou was the head of a commodity futures commission company. On19 February 1970, following an audit, the United States Department of Agriculture issued an administrative complaint alleging that Economou had willfullyfailed to maintain the minimum financial requirements set down by the department. The Department of Agriculture then tried, unsuccessfully, to revoke thecompany's registration in an administrative proceeding. Afterwards, Economoufiled for damages in district court against several U.S.D.A. officials, including the secretary and assistant secretary of agriculture, the judicial officer, the chief hearing examiner who had recommended sustaining the administrative complaint, and the department attorney who had prosecuted the enforcement proceeding. He claimed that by initiating unauthorized proceedings againsthim they had violated his constitutional rights.
The Lower Court Rulings
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was the first to rule. It dismissed Economou's complaint against the individual defendants.The court held that federal officials were entitled to absolute immunity forall discretionary acts within the scope of their authority. Economou then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's ruling.The court of appeals held that federal officials were entitled only to the qualified immunity granted to state government officials. Earl Butz, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Ruling
On 29 June 1978 the Supreme Court issued its decision. By a narrow vote of 5-4, it ruled in favor of Economou and against Earl Butz. Justice White wrote the majority opinion, in which he was joined by Justices Marshall, Powell, Brennan, and Blackmun. The majority opinion ruled on three points of contentionin the case.
Officials Entitled to Qualified Immunity
When a suit is brought against a federal executive official for damages resulting from unconstitutional action, the official is entitled only to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. Exceptions are to be made in cases where the official can show that absolute immunity is required for the performance ofofficial public duties. Thus federal officials were to be accorded the samelevel of immunity granted to state officials:

We agree with the perception of [the lower] courts that, in the absence of congressional direction to the contrary, there is no basis for according to federal officials a higher degree of immunity from liability when sued for a constitutional infringement . . . than is accorded state officials when sued for the identical violation . . . The pressures and uncertainties facing decision makers in state government are little if at all different from those affecting federal officials. We see no merit in holding a state governor liable but immunizing the head of a federal department; in holding the administrator of a federal hospitalimmune where the superintendent of a state hospital would be liable; in protecting the warden of a federal prison where the warden of a state prison would be vulnerable; or in distinguishing between state and federal police participating in the same investigation. Surely, federal officials should enjoy nogreater zone of protection when they violate federal constitutional rules than do state officers.

Officials Not Liable for Mistakes in Judgment
The second principle the Supreme Court established in the Butz decision was that federal officials would only be held liable for overt constitutional violations, not mere errors of judgment. In making this holding, the Courtrelied on the reasoning of the U.S. court of appeals:

While federal officials will not be liable for mere mistakes in judgment, whether the mistake is one of fact or one of law, there is no substantial basis for holdingthat executive officers generally may with impunity discharge their duties in a way that is known to them to violate the Constitution or in a manner thatthey should know transgresses a clearly established constitutional rule.

Agency Officials Held Absolutely Immune
Finally, the Court ruled that federal hearing examiners, administrative law judges, and other agency officials charged with initiating or sustaining proceedings such as the one brought against Economou were to be afforded absoluteimmunity from lawsuits. It based this holding on the importance of keeping these officials free from outside influences:

The discretion whichexecutive officials exercise with respect to the initiation of administrativeproceedings might be distorted if their immunity from damages arising from that decision was less than complete . . . We believe that agency officials must make the decision to move forward with an administrative proceeding free from intimidation or harassment. Because the legal remedies already availableto the defendant in such a proceeding provide sufficient checks on agency zeal, we hold that those officials who are responsible for the decision to initiate or continue a proceeding subject to agency adjudication are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their parts in that decision.

Related Cases

• Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1960).
  
• Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).