Butz v. Economou

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 of official public duties. Thus federal officials were to be accorded the same level 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 hospital immune 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 no greater zone of protection when they violate federal constitutional rules than do state officers.