Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Last updated

Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 30, 1981
Decided June 24, 1982
Full case nameRichard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald
Citations457 U.S. 731 ( more )
102 S. Ct. 2690; 73 L. Ed. 2d 349; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 42; 50 U.S.L.W. 4797
Case history
PriorCert. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
ConcurrenceBurger
DissentWhite, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
DissentBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office. The Court found that a president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." [1]

Contents

Background

Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald filed a lawsuit against government officials that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony made before Congress in 1968. [2] Among the people listed in the lawsuit was ex-President Richard Nixon, who argued that a president cannot be sued for actions taken while he is in office. [3]

The trial court and the appellate court rejected Nixon's claim of immunity. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. [4]

Opinion

In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not necessarily immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.[ citation needed ] The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office." [5]

The Court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave him with unfettered power. It stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials. [6]

The Court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press and noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office and to make the threat of impeachment credible. It determined that other incentives to avoid presidential misconduct existed, including the desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and the traditional concern for his historical stature. [7]

The decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones , in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency. [8] [9]

Subsequent application

In 2023, former president Donald Trump was indicted in four federal and state cases involving alleged criminal acts he undertook while president from 2017 to 2021. He contended that as president he had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, arguing that all his actions were within the scope of his official duties as president. The matter was heard by the United States Supreme Court in April 2024. Trump attorneys cited Fitzgerald to support Trump's argument, while attorneys for the Smith special counsel investigation that was prosecuting Trump cited United States v. Nixon , the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court decision rejecting Nixon's claim of "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Smith attorneys argued the Fitzgerald precedent does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions. [10] [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.

<i>United States v. Nixon</i> 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case ordering President Nixon to release all subpoenaed materials

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court. Decided on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, amidst an ongoing process to impeach Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ku Klux Klan Act</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871, is an Act of the United States Congress that was intended to combat the paramilitary vigilantism of the Ku Klux Klan. The act made certain acts committed by private persons federal offenses including conspiring to deprive citizens of their rights to hold office, serve on juries, or enjoy the equal protection of law. The Act authorized the President to deploy federal troops to counter the Klan and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to make arrests without charge.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. In particular, there is no temporary immunity and thus no delay of federal cases until the President leaves office.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal constitutional law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is comparable to sovereign immunity, though it protects government employees rather than the government itself. It is less strict than absolute immunity, which protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions. It is intended to ensure that judges can make decisions free from improper influence exercised on them, contributing to the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law. In modern times, the main purpose of "judicial immunity [is to shield] judges from the suits of ordinary people", primarily litigants who may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a case decided by the judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. Ernest Fitzgerald</span> American engineer and whistleblower (1926–2019)

Arthur Ernest "Ernie" Fitzgerald was an American engineer, a member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and a prominent U.S. government whistleblower.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity.

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), was a case decided on by the United States Supreme Court. The case restricted judicial immunity in certain instances.

The president of the United States is authorized by the U.S. Constitution to grant a pardon for a federal crime. The other forms of the clemency power of the president are commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve. A person may decide not to accept a pardon, in which case it does not take effect, according to a Supreme Court majority opinion in Burdick v. United States. In 2021, the 10th Circuit ruled that acceptance of a pardon does not constitute a legal confession of guilt, recognizing the Supreme Court's earlier language as authoritative.

Dean John Sauer is an American lawyer who previously served as Solicitor General of Missouri and Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation in the U.S. state of Missouri.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark US Supreme Court case arising from a subpoena issued in August 2019 by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. against Mazars, then-President Donald Trump's accounting firm, for Trump's tax records and related documents, as part of his ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal. Trump commenced legal proceedings to prevent their release.

Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1997), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States where the court decided unanimously local legislators are entitled to the same absolute immunity from civil liability under Section 1983 for their legislative activities as are federal, state and regional legislators regardless of motive or intent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988</span>

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, also known as the Westfall Act, is a law passed by the United States Congress that modifies the Federal Tort Claims Act to protect federal employees from common law tort lawsuit while engaged in their duties for the government, while giving private citizens a route to seek damage from the government for violations. The law was passed in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 (1988), which had created a precedent that left federal employees open to liability to civil suits for actions they took while performing their duties for the government.

<i>Thompson v. Trump</i> Court case relating to January 6 Capitol attack

Thompson v. Trump is an ongoing federal civil case filed in February 2021 on behalf of U.S. House Representative Bennie Thompson against former U.S. president Donald Trump. The lawsuit claims that Trump and others conspired to incite the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In February 2022, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that presidential immunity did not shield Trump from the lawsuit. In March 2022, Trump appealed Mehta's ruling to the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2023, the Court of Appeals upheld Mehta's ruling.

A sitting president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is under legal dispute whether they also enjoy immunity from criminal liability or prosecution. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

<i>Trump v. United States</i> (2024) United States Supreme Court case

Trump v. United States is a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether, and to what extent, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists. The case extends from an ongoing federal trial to determine whether Donald Trump, president at the time, and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

References

  1. "Nixon v. Fitzgerald". Oyez Project.
  2. "Nixon v. Fitzgerald". Legal Information Institute . Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  3. Stein, Theodore P. (1983). "Nixon v. Fitzgerald: Presidential Immunity as a Constitutional Imperative". Catholic University Law Review . 32. Columbus School of Law: 759.
  4. Forry, Craig B. (March 15, 1983). "Nixon v. Fitzgerald: Recognition of Absolute Immunity From Personal Damage Liability for Presidential Acts". Pepperdine Law Review . 10 (4). Malibu, California: Pepperdine University School of Law: 674. Retrieved December 12, 2023.
  5. Baio, Ariana (April 25, 2024). "The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case". The Independent .
  6. Motos, supra, pp. 583-584
  7. Schultz, L. Peter (Spring 1986). "The Constitution, The Court, and Presidential Immunity: A Defense of Nixon v. Fitzgerald". Presidential Studies Quarterly . 16 (2). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell: 256.
  8. Motos, Jennifer (1998). "Failing to Score: Clinton v. Jones and Claims of Presidential Immunity". Mercer Law Review . 49. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University School of Law: 583.
  9. Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
  10. Baio, Ariana (April 25, 2024). "The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case". The Independent .
  11. Bomboy, Scott. "Update: The final briefs before the Trump immunity case arguments". National Constitution Center.

Further reading