Absolute immunity

Last updated

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. [1] The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, [2] and that the common law recognized this immunity. [2] 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." [2]

Contents

Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which sometimes applies when certain officials may have violated constitutional rights or federal law. [3]

Types

In the United States, absolute civil immunity applies to the following people and circumstances:

Presidential immunity

Although the U.S. president is frequently sued in his governmental capacity, he normally is not sued in his personal capacity as being personally liable. [11] In 1982, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while in office. [11] The Court suggested that this immunity was broad (though not limitless), applying to acts within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official duties. [11] Fifteen years after Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in Clinton v. Jones that the president does not possess absolute immunity from civil litigation surrounding acts he carried out that were not part of his official duties (which is often incorrectly presented as referring only to acts carried out before becoming president). [12] [13] The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance held that the president is subject to subpoenas in criminal prosecutions for personal conduct with the same legal threshold as anyone else.

The extent to which presidential immunity applies to criminal offenses was disputed. There are non-contemporaneous reports that Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding while in office, although the historicity of this narrative is unclear. [14] There have been criminal investigations of three sitting presidents (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump), but no prosecutions. Memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel issued in 1973 and 2000 internally prohibit the Department of Justice from prosecuting a president, which some legal scholars have criticized but others have endorsed. [15]

In defense against federal criminal prosecution for his alleged 2020 election subversion, in January 2024 Donald Trump argued to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that a president enjoys absolute immunity for criminal acts conducted while in office. The next month, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled against Trump. It was the first time an appeals court had addressed such a presidential immunity matter, since no other sitting or former president had ever been criminally indicted. [16]

In Trump v. United States , on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents were entitled to absolute immunity from exercising core powers enumerated by the constitution, presumption of immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was sent back to lower courts to determine which actions in the criminal complaint should be classified as official vs. unofficial. [17] The ruling was the first time the courts granted a president criminal immunity.

Prosecutorial immunity

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their official actions during trial. [18] For instance, a prosecutor cannot be sued for purposely withholding exculpatory evidence, even if that act results in a wrongful conviction. [19] Absolute prosecutorial immunity also exists for acts closely related to the criminal process' judicial phase. [18]

However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions. [19] Further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a 2019 decision that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial discretion when performing purely administrative functions concerning a criminal prosecution. [20] Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor is not immune from liability for fabricating evidence during pre-trial investigations and then introducing that evidence at trial. [19]

Judicial immunity

Absolute judicial immunity applies when judges act in their judicial capacity. [4] A judge enjoys this immunity when they exceed their jurisdiction, but not when they act without any jurisdiction. [21] Judicial immunity also extends to non-judges when they act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, such as a court-appointed referee in an equitable distribution case. [22] Determining whether someone is acting in a judicial capacity and thus deserves absolute immunity requires using a functional test; that is, one must determine whether the person is acting functionally similarly to a judge. [23]

Testimonial immunity

In 2019, the Trump administration resisted efforts by House Democrats to compel Trump aides to testify, asserting that close aides to the president enjoy absolute immunity from providing testimony to Congress. [24] But a federal judge ruled against the administration, stating that close presidential advisors—even those working in national security—do not possess absolute immunity from testifying in congressional inquiries, [25] though these officials may invoke executive privilege whenever it is appropriate. [26] The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing the decision. [27] Previously, both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations had asserted absolute immunity in contexts like this, but the doctrine has been mostly untested in the judiciary. [24]

Controversy

Some scholars urge courts to reconsider the scope of certain forms of absolute immunity, particularly prosecutorial immunity. [28] They insist that absolute prosecutorial immunity is not supported by either public policy or history, and that applying this doctrine in everyday situations is needlessly unworkable. [29] Meanwhile, others push back, arguing that prosecutorial immunity is necessary to protect public servants from frivolous lawsuits. [28]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Absolute Immunity". biotech.law.lsu.edu. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  2. 1 2 3 Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982).
  3. ↑ "Qualified immunity". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-16.
  4. 1 2 3 Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976).
  5. ↑ Buckley v. Fitzsimmons , 509 U.S. 259 (1993).
  6. ↑ See Butz v. Economou , 438 U.S. 478, 513-17 (1978).
  7. ↑ Nixon v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
  8. ↑ Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 802 (1982).
  9. ↑ Rehberg v. Paulk , 566 U.S. 356 (2012).
  10. ↑ "Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can't Be Sued for Fraud". Insurance Journal. 2013-05-21. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  11. 1 2 3 "Can a President's Absolute Immunity be Trumped?". Lawfare. 2017-05-09. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  12. ↑ Can a President’s Absolute Immunity be Trumped? "Notably, the more general holding in Clinton v. Jones, [...] contrary to common belief, is not quite predicated on the conduct’s having taken place before President Clinton took office. Rather, the court distinguishes Fitzgerald on grounds that the conduct alleged in Jones's suit was not plausibly encompassed within the President's official duties. That it preceded his presidency was evidence of that reality, but it was the reality it supported that controlled the outcome. As Justice Stevens wrote, in distinguishing Fitzgerald, 'we have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.'"
  13. ↑ 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
  14. ↑ "Was General Grant Arrested for Speeding in Washington, D.C.?". Research by Ryan Semmes. Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site (National Park Service). Retrieved 2023-05-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  15. ↑ Prakash, Saikrishna Bangalore (November 2021). "Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents". Texas Law Review . 100 (1): 55–113. SSRN   4039230. EBSCOhost   154035452 . Retrieved 31 March 2023.
  16. ↑ Alan Feuer; Charlie Savage (February 6, 2024). "Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Claim of Absolute Immunity". The New York Times.
  17. ↑ "What does the immunity ruling mean for Trump's criminal cases?". The Guardian.
  18. 1 2 "How Broad Is Prosecutorial Immunity?". SCOTUSblog. 2009-11-03. Retrieved 2020-03-16.
  19. 1 2 3 Balko, Radley (January 30, 2014). "7th Circuit pokes a hole in prosecutorial immunity". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2020.
  20. ↑ "First Circuit: Prosecutor Not Entitled to Absolute Immunity When Performing Purely Administrative Duty | Criminal Legal News". www.criminallegalnews.org. Retrieved 2020-03-16.
  21. ↑ Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. at 356-57.
  22. ↑ Sharp v. Gulley , 120 NC App 878 (1995).
  23. ↑ Butz v. Economou , 438 U.S. 478 (1978).
  24. 1 2 Tau, Byron (2019-11-26). "Judge Rejects White House Claims of Immunity for Close Aides". Wall Street Journal. ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  25. ↑ Savage, Charlie (2019-11-25). "Donald McGahn Must Testify to Congress, Judge Rules; Administration Will Appeal". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  26. ↑ Durkee, Alison. ""Presidents Are Not Kings": Federal Judge Destroys Trump's "Absolute Immunity" Defense Against Impeachment". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  27. ↑ Savage, Charlie (2019-11-25). "Donald McGahn Must Testify to Congress, Judge Rules; Administration Will Appeal". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  28. 1 2 Taddei, John P. Beyond Absolute Immunity: Alternative Protections for Prosecutors Against Ultimately. 106 Northwestern University Law Review 1883, 1883.
  29. ↑ Johns, Margaret Z., Reconsidering Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity, 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review 53, 56.

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.

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.

<i>Stump v. Sparkman</i> 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case on judicial immunity

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Roberts</span> Chief Justice of the United States since 2005

John Glover Roberts Jr. is an American jurist serving since 2005 as the 17th chief justice of the United States. He has been described as having a moderate conservative judicial philosophy, though he is primarily an institutionalist. Regarded as a swing vote in some cases, Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.

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.

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.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

<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.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Lewis Powell 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."

Karen LeCraft Henderson is an American lawyer and jurist serving since 1990 as a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She previously was a U.S. district judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina from 1986 to 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randolph Moss</span> American judge (born 1961)

Randolph Daniel Moss is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius N. Richardson</span> American judge (born 1976)

Julius Ness "Jay" Richardson is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was formerly an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">D. John Sauer</span> American lawyer (born 1974)

Dean John Sauer is an American lawyer who served as Solicitor General of Missouri from 2017 to 2023 and represented Donald Trump in his successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Menashi</span> American judge (born 1979)

Steven James Menashi is an American lawyer, academic, and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to his appointment to the court by President Donald Trump, he was an official in the Trump administration.

<i>In re: Don McGahn</i> American lawsuit regarding checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branches

In re: Don McGahn is a U.S. constitutional case lawsuit (1:19-cv-02379) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the House Judiciary Committee to compel the testimony of former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn Jr. under subpoena. McGahn was put under subpoena to testify regarding his knowledge of the Russia investigation and Mueller Report and whether President Donald Trump's actions could constitute obstruction of justice. The case gained importance as the House launched impeachment proceedings against Trump regarding the Trump–Ukraine scandal.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786 (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.

<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 of Representatives Bennie Thompson against former U.S. president Donald Trump. The lawsuit accused 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 against Trump.

Presidential immunity is the concept that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch. The case extends from an ongoing federal case to determine whether then-President Donald Trump and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It is the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for alleged official acts of a president was brought before the Supreme Court.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.