The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: November 30, 1981
11/30/1981: Harlow v. Fitzgerald argued.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
The case was decided 8-1. The majority opinion noted:
The issue in this case is the scope of the immunity available to the senior aides and advisers of the President of the United States in a suit for damages based upon their official acts.
The result was to provide limited immunity. To wit:
Where an official could be expected to know that certain conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate; and a person who suffers injury caused by such conduct may have a cause of action.
The Court was more divided in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where they split 5-4 regarding Nixon himself. He had "absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."
The case only involved a damage remedy, not a criminal prosecution. Justice White, however, still provided a strong dissent.