NIXON VS FITZGERALD 1982 US SUPREME COURT NOTE: this case is not actually

favorable by the other party. However, the dissenting opinion was used in commentaries
of law. Brief Fact Summary. A cost-management expert for the Air Force was fired after
he testified in front of Congress about cost overruns in certain military projects. The
Defendant, the President of the United States Richard Nixon (Defendant), claimed that
he made the firing decision. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The President of the United
States (President) is shielded by absolute immunity from civil damages for acts done in
his official capacity as President. Facts. The Plaintiff, Ernest Fitzgerald (Plaintiff), was
fired from his job with the Air Force as cost-management analyst because he
embarrassed his superiors by testifying about certain cost-overruns. The Air Force said
he was fired because of reorganization and a reduction in force. An internal memo was
passed through White House staff saying the Plaintiff was a top notch cost expert but
with very low marks of loyalty and recommended that they let him bleed. At a press
conference, the Defendant said he personally made the decision to fire the Plaintiff. The
White House later retracted the statement saying that the Defendant had confused the
Plaintiff with another employee. The Plaintiff brought suit and the Defendant moved for
summary judgment on the ground of absolute immunity from suit. Issue. Does the
President have absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in his official capacity?
Held. Yes, the President is immune from suit from his official acts as a matter of public
policy rooted in the structure of government mandated by the separation of power
principle. This immunity stems from the Presidents unique position in the constitution
scheme and the immense importance of his duties. The Supreme Court of the United
States (Supreme Court) is worried about diverting the Presidents energies to the
concerns related to private lawsuits. PART FAVORABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY
Dissent. Justice Byron White (J. White) felt that this decision places the President above
the law. Discussion.The President must be empowered with the maximum ability to deal
fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office. If not, his visibility would subject
him to numerous suits for civil damages. To keep the public safe, there is the
constitutional remedy of impeachment, vigilant oversight by Congress and the press.
WHITE, J., Dissenting Opinion JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN,
JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. The four dissenting
Members of the Court in Butz v. Economou,438 U.S. 478 (1978), argued that all federal
officials are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for any action they take in connection
with their official duties. That immunity would extend even to actions taken with express
knowledge that the conduct was clearly contrary to the controlling statute or clearly
violative of the Constitution. Fortunately, the majority of the Court rejected that
approach: we held that, although public officials perform certain functions that entitle
them to absolute immunity, the immunity attaches to particular functions -- not to
particular offices. Officials performing functions for which immunity is not absolute enjoy
qualified immunity; they are liable in damages only if their conduct violated well-
established law and if they should have realized that their conduct was illegal. The
Court now applies the dissenting view in Butz to the Office of the President: 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. Even if the President in this case ordered Fitzgerald fired by means of a
trumped-up reduction in force, knowing that such a discharge was contrary to the civil
service laws, he would be absolutely immune from suit. By the same token, if a
President, without following the statutory procedures which he knows apply to himself
as well as to other federal officials, orders his subordinates to wiretap or break into a
home for the purpose of installing a listening device, and the officers comply with his
request, the President would be absolutely immune from suit. He would be immune
regardless of the damage he inflicts, regardless of how violative of the statute and of the
Constitution he knew his conduct to be, and regardless of his purpose.