End date 1982 | ||
Full case name Bryce Harlow, et al. v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald Citations 457 U.S. 800 (more)
102 S. Ct. 2727; 73 L. Ed. 2d 396; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 139 Prior history Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Majority Powell, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor Concurrence Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun Concurrence Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun People also search for Mitchell v. Forsyth, Saucier v. Katz | ||
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. The case held that the aides were generally entitled to qualified immunity; however, an aide could obtain absolute immunity but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted."
Despite its immediate application to White House aides in the case at bar, the case is regarded as most importance for its clarification of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"