Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Last updated

Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Argument Oral argument
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 civil 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 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." [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 found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office." [5] The Court did not address the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution. [6]

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. [7]

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. [8]

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. [9] [10]

Legacy

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. [5] [11] In July 2024, in its 2024 Trump v. United States ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the Fitzgerald decision in a 6-3 ruling and further stated in its majority opinion that a U.S. President could not be criminally prosecuted for some conduct committed as President which was regarded as official acts. [12] However, it was still agreed that the U.S. President did not have broader immunity for conduct that was regarded as personal, unofficial acts. [12] [13]

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.

In the United States, a special counsel is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting president or attorney general might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than by an ordinary prosecutor who would otherwise be in the position of investigating his or her own superior. Special prosecutors also have handled investigations into those connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the Justice Department's prosecutors, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns.

<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.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that protects government actors from personal liability for violating statutory laws or constitutional rights while acting in their official capacity unless the violated law or right is "clearly established of which a reasonable person would have known".

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."

Federal pardons in the United States are granted only by the U.S. president, pursuant to their authority under the U.S. Constitution to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". Pardons extend to all federal criminal offenses, except in cases of impeachment, and entail various forms of clemency, including commuting or postponing a sentence, remitting a fine or restitution, delaying the imposition of a punishment, and providing amnesty to an entire group or class of individuals.

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.

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.

In 2023, four criminal indictments were filed against Donald Trump, former president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and current president elect of the United States. Two indictments are on state charges and two indictments are on federal charges.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)</span>

United States of America v. Donald J. Trump was a federal criminal case against Donald Trump, former president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and president-elect, regarding his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.

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.

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. 1 2 Baio, Ariana (April 25, 2024). "The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case". The Independent . Archived from the original on July 12, 2024.
  6. ↑ Rozenshtein, Alan (April 10, 2024). "Correcting Presidential Immunity's Original Sin". Lawfare . Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved June 2, 2024.
  7. ↑ Motos, supra, pp. 583-584
  8. ↑ 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. JSTOR   40574648.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
  11. ↑ Bomboy, Scott (April 22, 2024). "Update: The final briefs before the Trump immunity case arguments". National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024.
  12. 1 2 Hurley, Lawrence (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court provides win to Trump, ruling he has immunity for many acts in election interference indictment". NBC News. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
  13. ↑ Marimow, Ann E.; Barrett, Devlin (July 1, 2024). "Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump's trial". Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 5, 2024. Retrieved July 1, 2024.

Further reading

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.