Harlow v. Fitzgerald

A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a former Air Force management analyst, alleged that senior White House aides Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield helped cause his dismissal after he gave congressional testimony about cost overruns.

The aides claimed immunity from civil damages.

The dispute reached the courts because the police action, prosecution, civil-rights claim, or government policy raised a constitutional question that could not be answered by the facts alone.

When presidential aides and other federal officials are sued for constitutional violations, are they protected by absolute immunity, or only qualified immunity, and what legal standard applies?

In plain English, the court had to decide where police authority ended and constitutional protection began under the facts of this case.

The Supreme Court held that presidential aides generally receive qualified immunity, not absolute immunity. Federal officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known.

The decision matters because harlow reshaped qualified immunity by removing most inquiry into an official's subjective good faith and focusing on objective legal reasonableness. That standard still drives civil-rights litigation against government officials, including many law-enforcement cases.

Government officials can be sued for constitutional violations, but they are usually protected unless the law was clearly established at the time and a reasonable official would have understood the conduct was unlawful.

Harlow is a foundation of modern qualified immunity doctrine. Courts still use its clearly-established-law framework when deciding whether officers and other officials must face damages claims after alleged constitutional violations.