Nixon v. Fitzgerald
 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification.(December 2023) |
| Nixon v. Fitzgerald | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 30, 1981 Decided June 24, 1982 | |
| Full case name | Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald |
| Citations | 457U.S.731(more) 102 S. Ct. 2690; 73L. Ed. 2d349; 1982U.S. LEXIS42; 50 U.S.L.W. 4797 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Burger |
| Dissent | White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
Nixon v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 731 (1982), was aUnited States Supreme Courtcase dealing with presidential immunity fromcivil liabilityfor actions taken while in office. The Court found that a president "is entitled to absolute immunity fromdamages liabilitypredicated on his official acts. "[1]
Background[edit]
Arthur Ernest Fitzgeraldfiled a lawsuit against government officials that he had lost his position as a contractor for theUS Air Forcebecause of testimony made beforeCongressin 1968.[2]Among the people listed in the lawsuit was ex-PresidentRichard Nixon,who argued that a president cannot be sued for actions taken while he is in office.[3]
Thetrial courtand theappellate courtrejected Nixon's claim of immunity. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.[4]
Opinion[edit]
In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity fromlegal liabilityforcivil damagesbased 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.[5]The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office."[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 byClinton 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]
Subsequent application[edit]
In 2023, former presidentDonald Trumpwas indicted infour federal and state casesinvolving 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 citedFitzgeraldto support Trump's argument, while attorneys for theSmith special counsel investigationthat was prosecuting Trump citedUnited 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 theFitzgeraldprecedent does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions.[11][12]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^"Nixon v. Fitzgerald".Oyez Project.
- ^"Nixon v. Fitzgerald".Legal Information Institute.RetrievedSeptember 6,2018.
- ^Stein, Theodore P. (1983)."Nixon v. Fitzgerald:Presidential Immunity as a Constitutional Imperative ".Catholic University Law Review.32.Columbus School of Law:759.
- ^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.RetrievedDecember 12,2023.
- ^Rozenshtein, Alan (April 10, 2024)."Correcting Presidential Immunity's Original Sin".Lawfare.RetrievedJune 2,2024.
- ^Baio, Ariana (April 25, 2024)."The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case".The Independent.
- ^Motos,supra,pp. 583-584
- ^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.
- ^Motos, Jennifer (1998)."Failing to Score:Clinton v. Jonesand Claims of Presidential Immunity ".Mercer Law Review.49.Macon, Georgia:Mercer University School of Law:583.
- ^Clinton v. Jones,520U.S.681(1997).
- ^Baio, Ariana (April 25, 2024)."The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case".The Independent.
- ^Bomboy, Scott."Update: The final briefs before the Trump immunity case arguments".National Constitution Center.
Further reading[edit]
- Amar, Akhil Reed;Katyal, Neal Kumar(1995)."Executive Privileges and Immunities: TheNixonandClintonCases ".Harvard Law Review.108(3): 701–726.doi:10.2307/1341920.JSTOR1341920.
- Orenstein, Aviva A. (1982). "Presidential Immunity from Civil Liability:Nixon v. Fitzgerald".Cornell Law Review.68(2): 236–256.
- Schultz, L. Peter (1986). "The Constitution, The Court, and Presidential Immunity: A Defense ofNixon v. Fitzgerald".Presidential Studies Quarterly.16(2): 247–257.JSTOR40574648.
External links[edit]
- Text ofNixon v. Fitzgerald,457U.S.731 (1982) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
