butz
economou
argued
november
decided
june
unsuccessful
department
agriculture
proceeding
revoke
suspend
registration
respondent
commodity
futures
commission
company
respondent
filed
action
damages
district
petitioner
officials
including
secretary
assistant
secretary
agriculture
judicial
officer
chief
hearing
examiner
recommended
sustaining
administrative
complaint
department
attorney
prosecuted
enforcement
proceeding
alleging
inter
alia
instituting
unauthorized
proceedings
violated
various
constitutional
rights
district
dismissed
action
ground
individual
defendants
federal
officials
entitled
absolute
immunity
discretionary
acts
within
scope
authority
appeals
reversed
holding
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
available
counterparts
state
government
held
neither
barr
matteo
spalding
vilas
supports
petitioners
contention
federal
officials
sued
case
absolutely
immune
liability
damages
even
course
enforcing
relevant
statutes
infringed
respondent
constitutional
rights
even
violation
knowing
deliberate
either
cases
purport
abolish
liability
federal
officers
actions
manifestly
beyond
line
duty
accountable
stray
beyond
plain
limits
statutory
authority
incongruous
hold
may
nevertheless
willfully
knowingly
violate
constitutional
rights
without
fear
liability
pp
without
congressional
directions
contrary
untenable
draw
distinction
purposes
immunity
law
suits
brought
state
officials
scheuer
rhodes
suits
brought
directly
constitution
federal
officials
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
federal
officials
enjoy
greater
zone
protection
violate
federal
constitutional
rules
state
officers
pp
suit
damages
arising
unconstitutional
action
federal
executive
officials
exercising
discretion
entitled
qualified
immunity
specified
scheuer
rhodes
supra
subject
exceptional
situations
demonstrated
absolute
immunity
essential
conduct
public
business
federal
officials
liable
mere
mistakes
judgment
whether
mistake
one
fact
one
law
substantial
basis
holding
executive
officers
generally
may
impunity
discharge
duties
way
known
violate
constitution
manner
know
transgresses
clearly
established
constitutional
rule
pp
although
qualified
immunity
damages
liability
general
rule
executive
officials
charged
constitutional
violations
officials
whose
special
functions
require
full
exemption
liability
pp
light
safeguards
provided
agency
adjudication
assure
hearing
examiner
administrative
law
judge
exercises
independent
judgment
evidence
free
pressures
parties
officials
within
agency
risk
unconstitutional
act
one
presiding
agency
hearing
clearly
outweighed
importance
preserving
independent
judgment
therefore
persons
subject
restraints
performing
adjudicatory
functions
within
federal
agency
entitled
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
judicial
acts
pp
agency
officials
perform
functions
analogous
prosecutor
must
make
decision
move
forward
administrative
proceeding
free
intimidation
harassment
legal
remedies
already
available
defendant
proceeding
provide
sufficient
checks
agency
zeal
officials
responsible
decision
initiate
continue
proceeding
subject
agency
adjudication
entitled
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
parts
decision
pp
substantial
difference
function
agency
attorney
presenting
evidence
agency
hearing
function
prosecutor
brings
evidence
since
administrative
agencies
act
public
interest
adjudicate
basis
complete
record
agency
attorney
arranges
presentation
evidence
record
course
adjudication
absolutely
immune
suits
based
introduction
evidence
pp
case
remanded
application
foregoing
principles
claims
particular
involved
white
delivered
opinion
brennan
marshall
blackmun
powell
joined
rehnquist
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
burger
stewart
stevens
joined
post
deputy
solicitor
general
friedman
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
babcock
robert
kopp
barbara
herwig
david
buxbaum
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
justice
white
delivered
opinion
case
concerns
personal
immunity
federal
officials
executive
branch
claims
damages
arising
violations
citizens
constitutional
rights
respondent
filed
suit
number
officials
department
agriculture
claiming
instituted
investigation
administrative
proceeding
retaliation
criticism
agency
district
dismissed
action
ground
individual
defendants
federal
officials
entitled
absolute
immunity
discretionary
acts
within
scope
authority
appeals
reversed
holding
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
available
counterparts
state
government
economou
department
agriculture
importance
immunity
doctrine
vindication
constitutional
guarantees
effective
functioning
government
granted
certiorari
respondent
controls
arthur
economou
one
time
registered
department
agriculture
commodity
futures
commission
merchant
respondent
factual
allegations
lawsuit
focus
earlier
administrative
proceeding
department
agriculture
sought
revoke
suspend
company
registration
february
following
audit
department
agriculture
issued
administrative
complaint
alleging
respondent
registered
merchant
willfully
failed
maintain
minimum
financial
requirements
prescribed
department
another
audit
amended
complaint
issued
june
hearing
held
chief
hearing
examiner
department
filed
recommendation
sustaining
administrative
complaint
judicial
officer
department
secretary
delegated
decisional
authority
enforcement
proceedings
affirmed
chief
hearing
examiner
decision
respondent
petition
review
appeals
second
circuit
vacated
order
judicial
officer
reasoned
essential
finding
willfulness
made
proceeding
instituted
without
customary
warning
letter
judicial
officer
conceded
might
well
resulted
prompt
correction
claimed
insufficiencies
economou
department
agriculture
administrative
complaint
pending
judicial
officer
respondent
filed
lawsuit
federal
district
respondent
sought
initially
enjoin
progress
administrative
proceeding
unsuccessful
regard
march
respondent
filed
second
amended
complaint
seeking
damages
named
defendants
individuals
served
secretary
assistant
secretary
agriculture
relevant
events
judicial
officer
chief
hearing
examiner
several
officials
commodity
exchange
authority
agriculture
department
attorney
prosecuted
enforcement
proceeding
several
auditors
investigated
respondent
witnesses
respondent
complaint
stated
prior
issuance
administrative
complaints
respondent
sharply
critical
staff
operations
defendants
carried
vociferous
campaign
reform
defendant
commodity
exchange
authority
obtain
effective
regulation
commodity
trading
app
complaint
also
stated
time
prior
issuance
february
complaint
respondent
company
ceased
engage
activities
regulated
defendants
complaint
charged
administrative
complaints
issued
without
notice
warning
required
law
defendants
furnished
complaints
interested
persons
others
without
furnishing
respondent
answers
well
following
issuance
amended
complaint
defendants
issued
deceptive
press
release
falsely
indicated
public
respondent
financial
resources
deteriorated
defendants
knew
statement
untrue
acknowledge
previously
said
assertion
untrue
ibid
complaint
presented
causes
action
purported
state
claims
damages
constitution
example
first
cause
action
alleged
respondent
denied
due
process
law
defendants
instituted
unauthorized
proceedings
without
proper
notice
knowledge
respondent
longer
subject
regulatory
jurisdiction
third
cause
action
stated
means
actions
defendants
discouraged
chilled
campaign
criticism
plaintiff
directed
thereby
deprived
plaintiff
rights
free
expression
guaranteed
first
amendment
constitution
defendants
moved
dismiss
complaint
ground
individual
defendants
barred
doctrine
official
immunity
defendants
relied
affidavit
submitted
earlier
litigation
attorney
prosecuted
original
administrative
complaint
respondent
stated
secretary
agriculture
involvement
case
named
defendants
acted
within
course
official
duties
district
apparently
relying
plurality
opinion
barr
matteo
held
individual
defendants
entitled
immunity
show
alleged
unconstitutional
acts
within
outer
perimeter
authority
discretionary
app
pet
cert
examining
nature
acts
alleged
complaint
district
concluded
since
individual
defendants
shown
alleged
unconstitutional
acts
within
scope
authority
discretionary
dismiss
second
amended
complaint
appeals
second
circuit
reversed
district
judgment
dismissal
respect
individual
defendants
economou
department
agriculture
appeals
reasoned
barr
matteo
supra
represen
last
word
evolving
area
principles
governing
immunity
officials
executive
branch
elucidated
later
decisions
dealing
constitutional
claims
state
officials
pierson
ray
scheuer
rhodes
wood
strickland
opinions
understood
establish
officials
executive
branch
exercising
discretionary
functions
need
protection
absolute
immunity
suit
qualified
immunity
based
good
faith
reasonable
grounds
appeals
rejected
proposed
distinction
suits
state
officials
sued
pursuant
suits
federal
officials
constitution
noting
ther
circuits
also
concluded
development
official
immunity
doctrine
suits
state
officials
applies
equal
force
federal
officers
sued
cause
action
derived
directly
constitution
since
types
suits
serve
function
protecting
citizens
violations
constitutional
rights
government
officials
appeals
recognized
imbler
pachtman
state
prosecutors
entitled
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
reasoned
agriculture
department
officials
performing
analogous
functions
require
immunity
cases
turned
documentary
proof
veracity
witnesses
work
generally
involve
constraints
time
information
present
criminal
cases
concluded
defendants
adequately
protected
permitting
avail
defense
qualified
good
faith
reasonable
grounds
immunity
type
approved
scheuer
wood
noting
summary
judgment
available
defendants
genuine
factual
issues
trial
appeals
remanded
case
proceedings
ii
single
submission
behalf
petitioners
federal
officials
sued
case
absolutely
immune
liability
damages
even
course
enforcing
relevant
statutes
infringed
respondent
constitutional
rights
even
violation
knowing
deliberate
although
position
earnestly
ably
presented
quite
sure
unsound
consequently
reject
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
victim
arrest
search
claimed
violative
fourth
amendment
brought
suit
damages
responsible
federal
agents
repeating
declaration
marbury
madison
cranch
essence
civil
liberty
certainly
consists
right
every
individual
claim
protection
laws
stating
istorically
damages
regarded
ordinary
remedy
invasion
personal
interests
liberty
rejected
claim
plaintiff
remedy
lay
state
state
law
fourth
amendment
operating
merely
nullify
defense
federal
authorization
held
violation
fourth
amendment
federal
agents
gives
rise
cause
action
damages
consequent
upon
unconstitutional
conduct
ibid
bivens
established
compensable
injury
constitutionally
protected
interest
vindicated
suit
damages
invoking
general
jurisdiction
federal
courts
reserved
question
whether
agents
involved
immune
liability
virtue
official
position
remanded
case
determination
remand
appeals
second
circuit
every
appeals
faced
question
held
agents
absolutely
immune
public
interest
sufficiently
protected
according
agents
superiors
qualified
immunity
view
courts
appeals
reached
sound
results
agree
prior
cases
contrary
support
rule
urges
us
embrace
indeed
see
government
submission
contrary
course
decision
early
days
republic
government
places
principal
reliance
barr
matteo
case
acting
director
agency
sued
malicious
defamation
two
employees
whose
suspension
misconduct
announced
press
release
defendant
claimed
absolute
qualified
privilege
trial
rejected
jury
returned
verdict
plaintiff
term
granted
certiorari
barr
determine
whether
circumstances
case
petitioner
claim
absolute
privilege
stood
bar
maintenance
suit
despite
allegations
malice
made
complaint
divided
reversing
judgment
appeals
opinion
plurality
opinion
inquired
whether
conduct
complained
among
matters
committed
law
official
control
concluded
analysis
specific
circumstances
press
release
within
outer
perimeter
line
duty
appropriate
exercise
discretion
officer
rank
must
possess
public
service
function
effectively
plurality
held
spalding
vilas
act
privileged
officer
held
liable
tort
defamation
despite
allegations
malice
barr
clearly
held
false
damaging
publication
issuance
otherwise
within
official
authority
actionable
become
issued
maliciously
choose
discuss
whether
director
privilege
defeated
showing
without
reasonable
grounds
believing
release
true
knew
false
although
issue
case
came
appeals
barr
control
case
address
liability
acting
director
conduct
within
outer
limits
duties
care
inquired
scope
authority
may
inferred
release
unauthorized
surely
issuance
press
releases
expressly
forbidden
statute
claim
absolute
immunity
upheld
inference
supported
fact
justice
stewart
although
agreeing
principles
announced
justice
harlan
dissented
rejected
immunity
claim
press
release
view
action
line
duty
apparent
also
quite
different
question
presented
officer
ignored
express
statutory
constitutional
limitation
authority
barr
therefore
purport
depart
general
rule
long
prevailed
federal
official
may
impunity
ignore
limitations
controlling
law
placed
powers
immunity
federal
executive
officials
began
means
protecting
execution
federal
statutory
duties
criminal
civil
actions
based
state
law
see
osborn
bank
wheat
federal
official
acted
outside
federal
statutory
authority
held
strictly
liable
trespassory
acts
example
little
barreme
cranch
held
commander
american
warship
liable
damages
seizure
danish
cargo
ship
high
seas
congress
directed
president
intercept
vessels
reasonably
suspected
en
route
french
port
president
authorized
seizure
suspected
vessels
whether
going
french
ports
danish
vessel
seized
en
route
forbidden
destination
speaking
chief
justice
marshall
held
president
instructions
change
nature
transaction
legalize
act
without
instructions
plain
trespass
although
probable
cause
believe
ship
engaged
traffic
french
seizure
issue
among
class
seizures
executive
authorized
statute
effect
see
also
wise
withers
cranch
bates
clark
similar
case
relevant
statute
directed
seizures
alcoholic
beverages
indian
country
seizure
issue
made
upon
orders
superior
made
indian
country
objection
fatal
class
defenses
locality
seizing
officers
utterly
without
authority
premises
hence
answerable
damages
cases
demonstrate
federal
official
protected
action
tortious
state
law
acts
authorized
controlling
federal
law
make
defence
must
show
authority
sufficient
law
protect
cunningham
macon
brunswick
belknap
schild
since
unconstitutional
act
even
authorized
statute
viewed
authorized
contemplation
law
immunity
defense
see
lee
virginia
coupon
cases
barreme
bates
officers
merely
mistakenly
conclude
circumstances
warranted
particular
seizure
failed
observe
limitations
authority
making
seizures
within
category
type
seizures
authorized
make
kendall
stokes
addressed
different
situation
case
involved
suit
postmaster
general
erroneously
suspending
payments
creditor
post
office
examining
necessary
suspending
payments
creditors
among
postmaster
normal
duties
appeared
simply
made
mistake
exercise
discretion
conferred
upon
held
liable
damages
since
public
officer
acting
best
judgment
sense
duty
matter
account
individual
liable
action
error
judgment
right
examine
account
right
suspend
proper
circumstances
officer
liable
damages
fell
error
provided
however
acted
sense
public
duty
without
malice
four
years
later
case
involving
military
discipline
issued
similar
ruling
exculpating
defendant
officer
failure
prove
exceeded
jurisdiction
exercised
malicious
willfully
erroneous
manner
enough
show
committed
error
judgment
must
malicious
wilful
error
wilkes
dinsman
spalding
vilas
government
relies
principal
issue
whether
malicious
motive
officer
render
liable
damages
injury
inflicted
official
act
otherwise
within
scope
authority
postmaster
general
sued
circulating
among
postmasters
notice
assertedly
injured
reputation
plaintiff
interfered
contractual
relationships
first
inquired
postmaster
general
authority
issue
notice
recognize
distinction
action
taken
head
department
reference
matters
manifestly
palpably
beyond
authority
action
less
connection
general
matters
committed
law
control
supervision
concluding
circular
issued
postmaster
general
unauthorized
law
beyond
scope
official
duties
addressed
major
question
case
whether
action
maintained
allegation
officer
done
maliciously
holding
head
department
held
liable
civil
suit
damages
account
official
communications
made
pursuant
act
congress
respect
matters
within
authority
however
improper
motives
might
postmaster
general
issuing
circular
question
exceed
authority
pass
line
duty
irrelevant
might
acted
maliciously
spalding
made
clear
malicious
intent
subject
public
officer
liability
performing
authorized
duties
otherwise
subject
damages
liability
spalding
involve
conduct
manifestly
otherwise
beyond
authority
official
involve
mistake
either
law
fact
construing
applying
statute
purport
immunize
officials
ignore
limitations
authority
imposed
law
although
manifestly
palpably
standard
examining
reach
official
power
may
suggested
gloss
barreme
bates
kendall
wilkes
none
cases
overruled
also
evident
spalding
presented
claim
officer
liable
damages
acted
violation
limitation
placed
upon
conduct
constitution
inference
drawn
spalding
respects
official
excused
liability
failed
observe
obvious
statutory
constitutional
limitations
powers
conduct
manifestly
erroneous
application
statute
insofar
cases
dealing
immunity
privilege
federal
officers
concerned
matter
stood
barr
matteo
set
immunity
granted
even
though
publication
contained
factual
error
case
spalding
plurality
opinion
judgment
barr
also
appear
although
without
discussion
matter
extended
absolute
immunity
officer
authorized
issue
press
releases
assumed
know
press
release
issued
false
therefore
deliberately
misusing
authority
accepting
extension
immunity
respect
state
tort
claims
however
confident
barr
purport
protect
official
committed
wrong
local
law
also
violated
fundamental
principles
fairness
embodied
constitution
whatever
level
protection
state
interference
appropriate
federal
officials
executing
duties
federal
law
doubted
officials
even
acting
pursuant
congressional
authorization
subject
restraints
imposed
federal
constitution
liability
officials
exceeded
constitutional
limits
confronted
either
barr
spalding
neither
cases
supports
government
position
beyond
however
neither
case
purported
abolish
liability
federal
officers
actions
manifestly
beyond
line
duty
accountable
stray
beyond
plain
limits
statutory
authority
incongruous
hold
may
nevertheless
willfully
knowingly
violate
constitutional
rights
without
fear
liability
although
true
dealt
issue
respect
federal
officers
several
times
addressed
immunity
state
officers
sued
alleged
violations
constitutional
rights
decisions
instructive
present
purposes
iii
pierson
ray
decided
intended
abrogate
immunity
state
judges
existed
common
law
held
applicable
federal
judges
bradley
fisher
wall
pierson
also
presented
issue
whether
immunity
available
segment
executive
branch
state
government
frequently
exposed
situations
give
rise
claims
local
police
officer
scheuer
rhodes
relying
common
law
held
police
officers
entitled
defense
good
faith
probable
cause
even
though
arrest
might
subsequently
proved
unconstitutional
observed
however
common
law
never
granted
police
officers
absolute
unqualified
immunity
officers
case
claim
entitled
one
scheuer
rhodes
supra
issue
whether
higher
officers
executive
branch
state
governments
immune
liability
violations
constitutionally
protected
rights
governor
state
senior
subordinate
officers
state
national
guard
state
university
president
sued
allegation
suppressed
civil
disturbance
unconstitutional
manner
explained
doctrine
official
immunity
liability
although
constitutionally
grounded
essentially
matter
statutory
construction
based
two
mutually
dependent
rationales
injustice
particularly
absence
bad
faith
subjecting
liability
officer
required
legal
obligations
position
exercise
discretion
danger
threat
liability
deter
willingness
execute
office
decisiveness
judgment
required
public
good
varying
scope
qualified
immunity
available
officers
executive
branch
government
variation
dependent
upon
scope
discretion
responsibilities
office
circumstances
reasonably
appeared
time
action
liability
sought
based
existence
reasonable
grounds
belief
formed
time
light
circumstances
coupled
belief
affords
basis
qualified
immunity
executive
officers
acts
performed
course
official
conduct
none
decisions
respect
state
officials
furnishes
support
submission
federal
officials
absolutely
immune
liability
constitutional
transgressions
contrary
impressive
unanimity
federal
courts
appeals
concluded
federal
officials
receive
greater
degree
protection
constitutional
claims
counterparts
state
government
subsequent
scheuer
appeals
fourth
circuit
concluded
lthough
scheuer
involved
suit
state
executive
officers
discussion
qualified
nature
executive
immunity
appear
equally
applicable
federal
executive
officers
marine
lines
shultz
view
appeals
second
circuit
incongruous
confusing
say
least
develop
different
standards
immunity
state
officials
sued
federal
officers
sued
similar
grounds
causes
action
founded
directly
constitution
economou
dept
agriculture
quoting
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
remand
defendants
offer
significant
reason
distinguishing
far
immunity
doctrine
concerned
litigation
state
officers
actions
federal
officers
alleging
violation
constitutional
rights
general
federal
question
statute
contrast
practical
advantage
one
federal
immunity
doctrine
suits
arising
federal
law
rights
stake
suit
brought
directly
bill
rights
less
worthy
full
protection
constitutional
statutory
rights
protected
mark
groff
agree
perception
courts
absence
congressional
direction
contrary
basis
according
federal
officials
higher
degree
immunity
liability
sued
constitutional
infringement
authorized
bivens
accorded
state
officials
sued
identical
violation
constitutional
injuries
made
actionable
greater
magnitude
federal
officials
may
responsible
pressures
uncertainties
facing
decisionmakers
state
government
little
different
affecting
federal
officials
see
sense
holding
state
governor
liable
immunizing
head
federal
department
holding
administrator
federal
hospital
immune
superintendent
state
hospital
liable
protecting
warden
federal
prison
warden
state
prison
vulnerable
distinguishing
state
federal
police
participating
investigation
surely
federal
officials
enjoy
greater
zone
protection
violate
federal
constitutional
rules
state
officers
government
argues
cases
involving
state
officials
distinguishable
reflect
need
preserve
effectiveness
right
action
authorized
discuss
fully
cause
action
recognized
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
similarly
drained
meaning
federal
officials
entitled
absolute
immunity
constitutional
transgressions
cf
scheuer
rhodes
moreover
government
analysis
place
undue
emphasis
congressional
origins
cause
action
determining
level
immunity
observed
law
privilege
defense
damages
actions
officers
government
large
part
judicial
making
barr
matteo
doe
mcmillan
section
civil
rights
act
predecessor
said
nothing
immunity
state
officials
mandated
person
color
state
law
subjected
another
deprivation
constitutional
rights
liable
injured
party
action
law
nevertheless
ascertained
announced
deemed
appropriate
type
immunity
liability
variety
contexts
pierson
ray
imbler
pachtman
scheuer
rhodes
supra
federal
courts
equally
competent
determine
appropriate
level
immunity
suit
direct
claim
federal
constitution
federal
officer
presence
absence
congressional
authorization
suits
federal
officials
course
relevant
question
whether
infer
right
action
damages
particular
violation
constitution
bivens
noted
absence
affirmative
action
congress
therefore
looked
special
factors
counselling
hesitation
absent
congressional
authorization
may
also
impelled
think
carefully
whether
type
injury
sustained
plaintiff
normally
compensable
damages
whether
courts
qualified
handle
types
questions
raised
plaintiff
claim
see
harlan
concurring
judgment
analysis
completed
reason
return
absence
congressional
authorization
resolving
question
immunity
determined
plaintiff
entitled
remedy
damages
constitutional
violation
must
address
best
reconcile
plaintiff
right
compensation
need
protect
decisionmaking
processes
executive
department
since
decision
scheuer
intended
guide
federal
courts
resolving
tension
myriad
factual
situations
might
arise
see
reason
supply
governing
principles
resolving
dilemma
case
federal
officials
opinion
scheuer
relied
precedents
dealing
federal
well
state
officials
analyzed
issue
executive
immunity
terms
general
policy
considerations
stated
conclusion
quoted
supra
universal
terms
analysis
presented
case
limited
actions
state
officials
accordingly
without
congressional
directions
contrary
deem
untenable
draw
distinction
purposes
immunity
law
suits
brought
state
officials
suits
brought
directly
constitution
federal
officials
action
provided
vindicate
federal
constitutional
rights
congress
decided
passage
fourteenth
amendment
enact
legislation
specifically
requiring
state
officials
respond
federal
failures
observe
constitutional
limitations
powers
hardly
reason
excusing
federal
counterparts
identical
constitutional
transgressions
create
system
bill
rights
monitors
closely
conduct
state
officials
federal
officials
stand
constitutional
design
head
iv
said
decision
bivens
established
citizen
suffering
compensable
injury
constitutionally
protected
interest
invoke
general
jurisdiction
district
courts
obtain
award
monetary
damages
responsible
federal
official
justice
harlan
concurring
judgment
pointed
action
damages
recognized
bivens
vital
means
providing
redress
persons
whose
constitutional
rights
violated
barrier
sovereign
immunity
frequently
impenetrable
injunctive
declaratory
relief
useless
person
already
injured
people
bivens
shoes
damages
nothing
opinion
bivens
put
aside
immunity
question
contemplated
immunity
absolute
government
argues
officials
exercising
discretion
exempt
personal
liability
suit
constitution
provide
redress
injured
citizen
degree
deter
federal
officials
committing
constitutional
wrongs
moreover
compensation
available
government
tort
claims
act
prohibits
recovery
injuries
stemming
discretionary
acts
even
discretion
abused
extension
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
federal
executive
officials
seriously
erode
protection
provided
basic
constitutional
guarantees
broad
authority
possessed
officials
enables
direct
subordinates
undertake
wide
range
projects
including
may
infringe
important
personal
interests
liberty
property
free
speech
makes
little
sense
hold
government
agent
liable
warrantless
forcible
entry
citizen
house
pursuit
evidence
official
higher
rank
actually
orders
burglary
immune
simply
greater
authority
indeed
greater
power
officials
affords
greater
potential
regime
lawless
conduct
extensive
government
operations
offer
opportunities
unconstitutional
action
massive
scale
situations
abuse
action
damages
responsible
official
important
means
vindicating
constitutional
guarantees
system
jurisprudence
rests
assumption
individuals
whatever
position
government
subject
federal
law
man
country
high
law
officer
law
may
set
law
defiance
impunity
officers
government
highest
lowest
creatures
law
bound
obey
lee
say
considerations
public
policy
fail
support
limited
immunity
federal
executive
officials
consider
scheuer
need
protect
officials
required
exercise
discretion
related
public
interest
encouraging
vigorous
exercise
official
authority
yet
scheuer
cases
recognized
unfair
hold
liable
official
knows
know
acting
outside
law
insisting
awareness
clearly
established
constitutional
limits
unduly
interfere
exercise
official
judgment
therefore
hold
suit
damages
arising
unconstitutional
action
federal
executive
officials
exercising
discretion
entitled
qualified
immunity
specified
scheuer
subject
exceptional
situations
demonstrated
absolute
immunity
essential
conduct
public
business
scheuer
principle
qualified
immunity
constitutional
violations
consistent
barr
matteo
spalding
vilas
kendall
stokes
federal
officials
liable
mere
mistakes
judgment
whether
mistake
one
fact
one
law
see
substantial
basis
holding
us
executive
officers
generally
may
impunity
discharge
duties
way
known
violate
constitution
manner
know
transgresses
clearly
established
constitutional
rule
principle
prove
workable
suits
federal
officials
context
suits
state
officials
insubstantial
lawsuits
quickly
terminated
federal
courts
alert
possibilities
artful
pleading
unless
complaint
compensable
claim
relief
federal
constitution
survive
motion
dismiss
moreover
recognized
scheuer
damages
suits
concerning
constitutional
violations
need
proceed
trial
terminated
properly
supported
motion
summary
judgment
based
defense
immunity
see
responding
motion
plaintiffs
may
play
dog
manger
firm
application
federal
rules
civil
procedure
ensure
federal
officials
harassed
frivolous
lawsuits
although
qualified
immunity
damages
liability
general
rule
executive
officials
charged
constitutional
violations
decisions
recognize
officials
whose
special
functions
require
full
exemption
liability
bradley
fisher
wall
imbler
pachtman
case
undertaken
considered
inquiry
immunity
historically
accorded
relevant
official
common
law
interests
behind
bradley
fisher
analyzed
need
absolute
immunity
protect
judges
lawsuits
claiming
decisions
tainted
improper
motives
began
noting
principle
immunity
acts
done
judges
exercise
judicial
functions
settled
doctrine
english
courts
many
centuries
never
denied
aware
courts
country
explained
value
rule
proved
experience
judges
often
called
decide
ontroversies
involving
merely
great
pecuniary
interests
liberty
character
parties
consequently
exciting
deepest
feelings
adjudications
invariably
produced
least
one
losing
party
accep
anything
soundness
decision
explanation
action
judge
ibid
proportion
strength
convictions
correctness
view
case
apt
complain
judgment
complaints
judgment
pass
ascription
improper
motives
judge
ibid
civil
action
maintained
judge
virtue
allegation
malice
judges
lose
independence
without
judiciary
either
respectable
useful
thus
judges
held
immune
civil
suit
malice
corruption
action
whilst
exercising
judicial
functions
within
general
scope
jurisdiction
principle
bradley
extended
federal
prosecutors
summary
affirmance
yaselli
goff
appeals
case
discussed
detail
precedents
extending
absolute
immunity
parties
participating
judicial
process
judges
grand
jurors
petit
jurors
advocates
witnesses
grand
jurors
received
absolute
immunity
lest
biased
fear
harassed
vicious
suit
acting
according
consciences
danger
might
easily
insinuated
powerful
men
warmly
engaged
cause
thoroughly
prepossessed
justice
side
espouse
quoting
hawkins
pleas
crown
ed
reasoned
public
prosecutor
deciding
whether
particular
prosecution
shall
instituted
followed
performs
much
function
grand
jury
quoting
smith
parman
held
prosecutor
case
immune
suit
malicious
prosecution
citing
bradley
fisher
supra
affirmed
recently
reaffirmed
holding
yaselli
goff
imbler
pachtman
supra
suit
state
prosecutor
examination
leading
precedents
led
conclusion
immunity
prosecutor
based
upon
considerations
underlie
immunities
judges
grand
jurors
acting
within
scope
duties
prosecutor
role
criminal
justice
system
likely
provoke
frequency
retaliatory
suits
angry
defendants
qualified
immunity
might
adverse
effect
functioning
criminal
justice
system
discouraging
initiation
prosecutions
see
also
affecting
prosecutor
conduct
trial
attaining
system
goal
accurately
determining
guilt
innocence
requires
prosecution
defense
wide
discretion
conduct
trial
presentation
evidence
prosecutors
hampered
exercising
judgment
use
witnesses
concern
resulting
personal
liability
triers
fact
criminal
cases
often
denied
relevant
evidence
despite
precedents
appeals
concluded
defendants
case
including
chief
hearing
examiner
judicial
officer
prosecuting
attorney
entitled
qualified
immunity
appeals
reasoned
officials
within
executive
branch
generally
circumscribed
discretion
pointed
unlike
judge
officials
executive
branch
face
conflict
interest
legal
representation
provided
executive
branch
appeals
recognized
agriculture
department
officials
may
analogized
criminal
prosecutors
initiated
proceedings
respondent
presented
evidence
therein
found
attorneys
administrative
proceedings
face
serious
constraints
time
even
information
found
present
frequently
criminal
cases
see
imbler
pachtman
think
appeals
placed
undue
emphasis
fact
officials
sued
administrative
perspective
employees
executive
branch
judges
absolute
immunity
particular
location
within
government
special
nature
responsibilities
point
underlined
fact
prosecutors
members
executive
branch
also
absolutely
immune
functional
comparability
judgments
judge
resulted
grand
jurors
prosecutors
referred
officers
immunities
termed
well
cluster
immunities
protecting
various
participants
trials
stems
characteristics
judicial
process
rather
location
bradley
suggested
controversies
sufficiently
intense
erupt
litigation
easily
capped
judicial
decree
loser
one
forum
frequently
seek
another
charging
participants
first
unconstitutional
animus
see
pierson
ray
absolute
immunity
thus
necessary
assure
judges
advocates
witnesses
perform
respective
functions
without
harassment
intimidation
time
safeguards
built
judicial
process
tend
reduce
need
private
damages
actions
means
controlling
unconstitutional
conduct
insulation
judge
political
influence
importance
precedent
resolving
controversies
adversary
nature
process
correctability
error
appeal
many
checks
malicious
action
judges
advocates
restrained
professional
obligations
knowledge
assertions
contested
adversaries
open
jurors
carefully
screened
remove
possibility
bias
witnesses
course
subject
rigors
penalty
perjury
features
judicial
process
tend
enhance
reliability
information
impartiality
decisionmaking
process
less
pressing
need
individual
suits
correct
constitutional
error
think
adjudication
within
federal
administrative
agency
shares
enough
characteristics
judicial
process
participate
adjudication
also
immune
suits
damages
conflicts
federal
hearing
examiners
seek
resolve
every
bit
fractious
come
bradley
opinion
points
controversy
involves
questions
affecting
large
amounts
property
relates
matter
general
public
concern
touches
interests
numerous
parties
disappointment
occasioned
adverse
decision
often
finds
vent
imputations
malice
moreover
federal
administrative
law
requires
agency
adjudication
contain
many
safeguards
available
judicial
process
proceedings
adversary
nature
see
conducted
trier
fact
insulated
political
influence
see
party
entitled
present
case
oral
documentary
evidence
transcript
testimony
exhibits
together
pleadings
constitute
exclusive
record
decision
parties
entitled
know
findings
conclusions
issues
fact
law
discretion
presented
record
little
doubt
role
modern
federal
hearing
examiner
administrative
law
judge
within
framework
functionally
comparable
judge
powers
often
generally
comparable
trial
judge
may
issue
subpoenas
rule
proffers
evidence
regulate
course
hearing
make
recommend
decisions
see
importantly
process
agency
adjudication
currently
structured
assure
hearing
examiner
exercises
independent
judgment
evidence
free
pressures
parties
officials
within
agency
prior
administrative
procedure
act
considerable
concern
persons
hearing
administrative
cases
trial
level
exercise
independent
judgment
required
perform
prosecutorial
investigative
functions
well
judicial
work
see
wong
yang
sung
mcgrath
often
subordinate
executive
officials
within
agency
see
ramspeck
federal
trial
examiners
conference
since
securing
fair
competent
hearing
personnel
viewed
heart
formal
administrative
adjudication
final
report
attorney
general
committee
administrative
procedure
administrative
procedure
act
contains
number
provisions
designed
guarantee
independence
hearing
examiners
may
perform
duties
inconsistent
duties
hearing
examiners
conducting
hearing
apa
ed
hearing
examiner
responsible
subject
supervision
direction
employees
agents
engaged
performance
investigative
prosecution
functions
agency
may
hearing
examiner
consult
person
party
including
agency
officials
concerning
fact
issue
hearing
unless
notice
opportunity
parties
participate
hearing
examiners
must
assigned
cases
rotation
far
practicable
may
removed
good
cause
established
determined
civil
service
commission
hearing
record
pay
also
controlled
civil
service
commission
light
safeguards
think
risk
unconstitutional
act
one
presiding
agency
hearing
clearly
outweighed
importance
preserving
independent
judgment
men
women
therefore
hold
persons
subject
restraints
performing
adjudicatory
functions
within
federal
agency
entitled
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
judicial
acts
complain
error
proceedings
must
seek
agency
judicial
review
also
believe
agency
officials
performing
certain
functions
analogous
prosecutor
able
claim
absolute
immunity
respect
acts
decision
initiate
administrative
proceedings
individual
corporation
much
like
prosecutor
decision
initiate
move
forward
criminal
prosecution
agency
official
like
prosecutor
may
broad
discretion
deciding
whether
proceeding
brought
sanctions
sought
commodity
futures
trading
commission
example
may
initiate
proceedings
whenever
reason
believe
person
violating
violated
provisions
chapter
rules
regulations
orders
commission
range
sanctions
open
ibid
discretion
executive
officials
exercise
respect
initiation
administrative
proceedings
might
distorted
immunity
damages
arising
decision
less
complete
cf
imbler
pachtman
likely
anyone
willing
legally
able
seek
damages
officials
authorize
administrative
proceeding
cf
white
concurring
judgment
serious
danger
decision
authorize
proceedings
provoke
retaliatory
response
individual
targeted
administrative
proceeding
react
angrily
may
seek
vengeance
courts
corporation
muster
financial
legal
resources
effort
prevent
administrative
sanctions
millions
may
turn
regulatory
decisions
strong
incentive
defendant
enforcement
proceeding
ample
opportunity
challenge
legality
proceeding
administrator
decision
proceed
case
subject
scrutiny
proceeding
respondent
may
present
evidence
impartial
trier
fact
obtain
independent
judgment
whether
prosecution
justified
claims
proceeding
unconstitutional
may
also
heard
courts
indeed
respondent
case
able
quash
administrative
order
entered
means
judicial
review
see
economou
department
agriculture
believe
agency
officials
must
make
decision
move
forward
administrative
proceeding
free
intimidation
harassment
legal
remedies
already
available
defendant
proceeding
provide
sufficient
checks
agency
zeal
hold
officials
responsible
decision
initiate
continue
proceeding
subject
agency
adjudication
entitled
absolute
immunity
damages
liability
parts
decision
turn
finally
role
agency
attorney
conducting
trial
presenting
evidence
record
trier
fact
see
substantial
difference
function
agency
attorney
presenting
evidence
agency
hearing
function
prosecutor
brings
evidence
either
case
evidence
subject
attack
rebuttal
reinterpretation
opposing
counsel
evidence
false
unpersuasive
rejected
upon
analysis
impartial
trier
fact
agency
attorneys
held
personally
liable
damages
guarantors
quality
evidence
might
hesitate
bring
forward
witnesses
documents
particularly
difficult
impossible
attorneys
absolutely
certain
objective
truth
falsity
testimony
present
imbler
pachtman
supra
white
concurring
judgment
apart
possible
unfairness
agency
personnel
agency
often
denied
relevant
evidence
cf
imbler
pachtman
supra
administrative
agencies
act
public
interest
adjudicate
basis
complete
record
therefore
hold
agency
attorney
arranges
presentation
evidence
record
course
adjudication
absolutely
immune
suits
based
introduction
evidence
vi
remains
task
applying
foregoing
principles
claims
particular
involved
case
rather
attempt
first
instance
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
instructions
remand
case
district
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
individuals
included
administrator
commodity
exchange
authority
director
compliance
division
deputy
director
registration
audit
division
regional
administrator
new
york
region
also
named
defendants
department
agriculture
commodity
exchange
authority
detailed
allegations
concerning
many
incidents
charged
complaint
contained
affidavit
filed
respondent
connection
earlier
efforts
obtain
injunctive
relief
second
cause
action
respondent
stated
defendants
issued
administrative
orders
illegal
punitive
nature
longer
subject
authority
fourth
cause
action
alleged
inter
alia
respondent
rights
due
process
law
privacy
guaranteed
federal
constitution
infringed
furnishing
administrative
complaints
interested
persons
without
respondent
answers
fifth
cause
action
similarly
alleged
violation
due
process
defendants
issued
press
release
containing
facts
defendants
knew
known
false
respondent
remaining
causes
action
allege
torts
abuse
legal
process
malicious
prosecution
invasion
privacy
negligence
trespass
district
held
complaint
barred
government
agency
defendants
doctrine
sovereign
immunity
although
noted
bell
hood
federally
protected
rights
invaded
rule
beginning
courts
alert
adjust
remedies
grant
necessary
relief
specific
question
faced
bivens
reserved
opinion
bivens
concerned
fourth
amendment
claim
therefore
discuss
personal
interests
similarly
protected
provisions
constitution
consider
issue
cf
doe
mcmillan
black
marine
lines
shultz
mark
groff
leasing
apton
wilson
app
see
paton
la
prade
weir
muller
brubaker
king
jones
case
term
trial
defendant
appealed
denial
absolute
privilege
appeals
affirmed
judgment
ground
press
release
exceeded
authority
barr
matteo
app
vacated
judgment
directing
appeals
consider
question
appeals
app
holding
described
press
release
protected
qualified
privilege
evidence
jury
reasonably
conclude
petitioner
acted
maliciously
spoken
lack
reasonable
grounds
believing
statement
true
either
conclusion
defeat
qualified
privilege
case
remanded
new
trial
defendant
sought
certiorari
second
time
justice
harlan
opinion
barr
joined
three
justices
majority
formed
concurrence
judgment
justice
black
emphasized
separate
opinion
strong
public
interest
encouraging
federal
employees
ventilate
ideas
government
run
wrote
similar
opinion
entered
similar
judgment
companion
case
howard
lyons
complaint
defamation
state
law
alleged
publication
deliberate
knowing
falsehood
federal
officer
judgment
entered
officer
trial
ground
release
within
limits
authority
judgment
reversed
part
appeals
ground
respects
defendant
entitled
qualified
privilege
reversed
ruling
barr
controlled
see
supra
question
presented
government
petition
certiorari
broadly
framed
whether
absolute
immunity
defamation
suits
accorded
officials
government
respect
acts
done
within
scope
official
authority
extends
statements
press
high
officers
cabinet
comparable
rank
concerning
matters
committed
law
control
supervision
pet
cert
barr
matteo
chief
justice
marshall
explained
officer
example
ordered
arrest
individual
necessary
usual
say
shall
punished
obeying
order
security
implied
order
unusual
thing
act
congress
imply
without
expressing
exemption
state
control
collectors
revenue
carriers
mail
mint
establishment
institutions
public
nature
examples
point
never
doubted
employed
protected
line
duty
yet
protection
expressed
act
congress
incidental
implied
several
acts
institutions
created
secured
individuals
employed
judicial
power
alone
indeed
appears
doubt
whether
even
act
congress
immunize
federal
officials
suits
seeking
damages
constitutional
violations
see
milligan
hovey
cas
cc
ind
griffin
wilcox
ind
see
generally
engdahl
immunity
accountability
positive
governmental
wrongs
rev
virginia
coupon
cases
like
lee
involved
suit
return
specific
property
principles
espoused
therein
equally
applicable
suit
damages
later
applied
atchison
topeka
santa
fe
individual
might
viewed
acting
maliciously
circumstances
show
disagreeably
impressed
fact
action
injuriously
affects
claims
particular
individuals
addressing
liability
postmaster
general
referred
bradley
fisher
wall
described
holding
judges
courts
superior
general
jurisdiction
liable
civil
suits
judicial
acts
even
acts
excess
jurisdiction
alleged
done
maliciously
corruptly
view
general
considerations
public
policy
convenience
demand
judges
courts
superior
jurisdiction
immunity
civil
suits
damages
arising
acts
done
course
performance
judicial
functions
apply
large
extent
official
communications
made
heads
executive
departments
engaged
discharge
duties
imposed
upon
law
plainly
applied
bradley
fisher
principles
holding
proof
malice
subject
executive
officer
liability
performing
act
authorized
perform
federal
law
principles
however
said
completely
applicable
indicated
text
revealed
intention
overrule
kendall
stokes
wilkes
immunize
officer
liability
willful
misapplication
authority
also
face
spalding
opinion
appear
executive
officer
vulnerable
took
action
manifestly
palpably
beyond
authority
ignored
clear
limitation
enforcement
powers
justice
brennan
dissenting
barr
matteo
emphasized
point
suit
spalding
seems
much
suit
malicious
interference
advantageous
relationships
libel
suit
reviewed
facts
found
false
statement
see
case
may
stand
proposition
cabinet
officer
publishes
statement
factually
inaccurate
relating
matter
within
department
competence
charged
improper
motives
publication
opinion
leaned
heavily
fact
contents
statement
face
defamatory
quite
accurate
support
conclusion
publishing
statement
within
officer
discretion
foreclosing
inquiry
motives
indeed
barreme
bates
cited
approval
decision
submission
spalding
handed
scant
month
judgment
spalding
announced
belknap
schild
period
prior
barr
lower
federal
courts
broadly
extended
spalding
according
absolute
immunity
federal
officials
sued
torts
jones
kennedy
app
cert
denied
papagianakis
samos
cert
denied
see
cases
collected
gray
supra
view
case
present
posture
concerned
constitutional
issues
district
memorandum
focused
exclusively
respondent
constitutional
claims
appears
language
reasoning
opinion
appeals
also
essentially
concerned
respondent
constitutional
claims
see
second
circuit
subsequently
read
economou
limited
context
see
huntington
towers
franklin
nat
bank
cert
denied
sub
nom
huntington
towers
federal
reserve
bank
argument
us
well
focused
respondent
constitutional
claims
holding
limited
doc
mcmillan
involve
constitutional
claim
invasion
privacy
special
context
speech
debate
clause
held
executive
officials
immune
suit
extent
legislators
whose
behest
printed
distributed
documents
claim
protection
speech
debate
clause
quoting
barr
matteo
spoke
barr
matteo
arising
context
suit
elsewhere
opinion
however
discussed
barr
arising
somewhat
parallel
context
privilege
public
officers
defamation
actions
also
relied
spalding
vilas
without
mentioning
decision
concerned
federal
officials
early
judge
attorney
general
bell
concurring
specially
judgment
appeals
fifth
circuit
recorded
continuing
belief
police
ancillary
personnel
nation
whether
state
federal
subject
accountability
law
conduct
anderson
nosser
objected
notion
one
law
athens
another
rome
ibid
appears
recent
decision
fifth
circuit
abandoned
view
criticized
see
weir
muller
courts
judges
noted
incongruity
arise
officials
district
columbia
subject
given
absolute
immunity
counterparts
state
government
received
qualified
immunity
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
carter
carlson
app
nichols
concurring
rev
grounds
sub
nom
district
columbia
carter
first
sixth
circuits
recently
accorded
immunity
federal
officials
sued
torts
without
discussion
views
respect
constitutional
claims
berberian
gibney
mandel
nouse
apton
wilson
app
judge
leventhal
compared
governor
state
highest
officers
federal
executive
department
difference
office
relevant
immunity
depends
part
upon
scope
discretion
responsibilities
office
scheuer
rhodes
supra
difference
conclusive
case
like
highest
executive
officer
state
head
federal
executive
department
broad
discretionary
authority
called
upon
act
circumstances
judgments
tentative
unambiguously
optimal
course
action
ascertained
retrospect
officials
functions
responsibilities
concerned
maintaining
public
order
may
impel
officials
make
decisions
atmosphere
confusion
ambiguity
swiftly
moving
events
scheuer
rhodes
supra
wider
territorial
responsibility
head
state
government
federal
cabinet
officer
may
entitled
consult
fewer
sources
expend
less
effort
inquiring
circumstances
localized
problem
considerations
go
showing
officer
vested
qualified
immunity
must
make
support
good
faith
belief
make
qualified
immunity
inappropriate
head
executive
department
less
chief
executive
state
adequately
protected
qualified
immunity
section
civil
rights
act
stat
provided
pertinent
part
ny
person
color
law
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
shall
subject
cause
subjected
person
within
jurisdiction
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
shall
law
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
contrary
notwithstanding
liable
party
injured
action
law
purpose
civil
rights
act
abolish
immunities
available
common
law
see
pierson
ray
insure
federal
courts
jurisdiction
constitutional
claims
state
officials
explained
district
columbia
carter
time
act
adopted
existed
general
jurisdiction
lower
federal
courts
rather
congress
relied
state
courts
vindicate
essential
rights
arising
constitution
federal
laws
zwickler
koota
growing
awareness
reliance
misplaced
however
congress
recognized
need
original
federal
jurisdiction
means
provide
least
indirect
federal
control
unconstitutional
actions
state
officials
footnotes
omitted
time
bivens
decision
federal
tort
claims
act
prohibited
recovery
government
claim
arising
assault
battery
false
imprisonment
false
arrest
malicious
prosecution
abuse
process
libel
slander
misrepresentation
deceit
interference
contract
rights
justice
harlan
author
plurality
opinion
barr
noted
although
interests
efficient
law
enforcement
argue
protective
zone
respect
many
types
fourth
amendment
violations
least
remedy
available
flagrant
patently
unjustified
sorts
police
conduct
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
concurring
judgment
pursuant
ed
government
immune
claim
based
upon
exercise
performance
failure
exercise
perform
discretionary
function
duty
part
federal
agency
employee
government
whether
discretion
involved
abused
government
argued
bivens
plaintiff
relegated
traditional
remedy
state
law
scheme
fourth
amendment
serve
merely
limit
extent
agents
defend
state
law
tort
suit
asserting
actions
valid
exercise
federal
power
agents
shown
violated
fourth
amendment
defense
lost
stand
state
law
merely
private
individuals
although
passage
makes
clear
traditional
doctrine
accord
immunity
officials
transgressed
constitutional
limits
believe
federal
officials
sued
traditional
means
similarly
entitled
scheuer
immunity
defendant
official
may
also
able
assert
summary
judgment
constitutional
privilege
example
case
defendant
officials
may
able
argue
issuance
press
release
privileged
accurate
report
matter
public
record
administrative
proceeding
see
handler
klein
defense
privilege
defamation
suits
government
executive
officials
harv
rev
course
decide
issue
time
pierson
ray
recognized
state
judges
sued
constitutional
claims
pursuant
claim
similar
absolute
immunity
reasoned
judge
duty
decide
cases
within
jurisdiction
brought
including
controversial
cases
arouse
intense
feelings
litigants
errors
may
corrected
appeal
fear
unsatisfied
litigants
may
hound
litigation
charging
malice
corruption
imposing
burden
judges
contribute
principled
fearless
intimidation
imbler
specifically
reserved
question
whether
like
similar
reasons
require
immunity
aspects
prosecutor
responsibility
cast
role
administrator
investigative
officer
rather
advocate
see
generally
handler
klein
supra
expeditions
unlimited
aquatic
enterprises
smithsonian
institution
app
cert
pending
prosecutors
act
serious
constraints
time
even
information
central
decision
imbler
might
said
wide
variety
state
federal
officials
enjoy
qualified
immunity
see
scheuer
rhodes
think
administrative
enforcement
proceedings
may
distinguished
criminal
prosecutions
ground
former
often
turn
documentary
proof
key
point
administrative
personnel
like
prosecutors
often
must
decide
especially
cases
wide
public
interest
whether
proceed
trial
sharp
conflict
evidence
imbler
complexity
quantity
documentary
proof
may
adduced
enforcement
proceeding
may
make
decision
even
difficult
decision
prosecute
suspect
justice
rehnquist
chief
justice
justice
stewart
justice
stevens
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
concur
part
judgment
affords
absolute
immunity
persons
performing
adjudicatory
functions
within
federal
agency
ante
responsible
decision
initiate
continue
proceeding
subject
agency
adjudication
ante
agency
personnel
present
evidence
record
course
adjudication
ante
agree
however
conclusion
suit
damages
arising
allegedly
unconstitutional
action
federal
executive
officials
regardless
rank
scope
responsibilities
entitled
qualified
immunity
even
acting
within
outer
limits
authority
protestations
contrary
notwithstanding
decision
seriously
misconstrues
prior
decisions
finds
little
support
matter
logic
precedent
perhaps
importantly
fear
seriously
dampen
ardor
resolute
irresponsible
unflinching
discharge
duties
gregoire
biddle
learned
hand
noticeable
unnaturally
constrained
reading
landmark
case
spalding
vilas
case
indeed
hold
actions
taken
postmaster
general
within
authority
conferred
upon
congress
went
hold
even
though
acted
maliciously
carrying
duties
conferred
upon
congress
protected
official
immunity
left
doubt
reached
result
alleged
official
acts
unconstitutional
opinion
general
considerations
public
policy
convenience
demand
judges
courts
superior
jurisdiction
immunity
civil
suits
damages
arising
acts
done
course
performance
judicial
functions
apply
large
extent
official
communications
made
heads
executive
departments
engaged
discharge
duties
imposed
upon
law
interests
people
require
due
protection
accorded
respect
official
acts
indeed
language
spalding
quoted
unquestionably
applies
equal
force
case
bar
one
seriously
contends
secretary
agriculture
assistant
secretary
sued
million
damages
wandered
completely
official
reservation
authorizing
prosecution
respondent
violation
regulations
promulgated
secretary
regulation
futures
commission
merchants
precisely
secretary
assistants
empowered
required
occasion
mistaken
judgment
particular
merchant
fact
violated
regulations
necessary
concomitant
known
system
administrative
adjudication
acted
maliciously
gives
support
respondent
claim
unless
overrule
spalding
attempt
distinguish
spalding
may
predicated
simpler
equally
erroneous
concept
immunity
one
point
observes
even
spalding
executive
officer
vulnerable
took
action
manifestly
palpably
beyond
authority
ignored
clear
limitation
enforcement
powers
ante
proposition
undeniably
accurate
appears
conclude
anytime
plaintiff
paint
grievance
constitutional
colors
official
subject
damages
unless
prove
acted
good
faith
congress
never
authorize
official
engage
unconstitutional
conduct
notion
fact
underlines
decision
strongly
suggested
discussion
numerous
cases
supposedly
support
position
fact
deal
question
level
immunity
federal
official
may
claim
acting
within
outer
limits
authority
rather
question
whether
fact
acting
see
ante
putting
one
side
illogic
impracticability
distinguishing
constitutional
claims
purposes
immunity
discussed
shortly
sort
immunity
analysis
badly
misses
mark
amounts
saying
official
immunity
someone
alleges
acted
unconstitutionally
immunity
immunity
disappears
moment
needed
critical
inquiry
determining
whether
official
entitled
claim
immunity
whether
someone
fact
injured
action
part
plaintiff
case
chief
immunity
defense
turns
whether
action
one
taken
engaged
discharge
duties
imposed
upon
official
law
spalding
words
whether
official
acting
within
outer
bounds
authority
immunity
inquiry
approached
manner
meaning
rule
may
occasionally
result
individual
injustices
never
doubted
least
today
immunity
accorded
nevertheless
judge
learned
hand
said
gregoire
biddle
justification
impossible
know
whether
claim
well
founded
case
tried
submit
officials
innocent
well
guilty
burden
trial
inevitable
danger
outcome
dampen
ardor
resolute
irresponsible
unflinching
discharge
duties
public
interest
calls
action
may
turn
founded
mistake
face
official
may
later
find
hard
put
satisfy
jury
good
faith
must
indeed
means
punishing
public
officers
truant
duties
quite
another
matter
exposing
honestly
mistaken
suit
anyone
suffered
errors
often
case
answer
must
found
balance
evils
inevitable
either
alternative
instance
thought
end
better
leave
unredressed
wrongs
done
dishonest
officers
subject
try
duty
constant
dread
retaliation
decisions
indeed
always
imposed
limitation
upon
immunity
official
act
must
within
scope
powers
argued
official
powers
since
exist
public
good
never
cover
occasions
public
good
aim
hence
exercise
power
dishonestly
necessarily
overstep
bounds
moment
reflection
shows
however
meaning
limitation
without
defeating
whole
doctrine
meant
saying
officer
must
acting
within
power
occasion
must
justified
act
using
power
purposes
whose
account
vested
ibid
likewise
seriously
argued
official
less
deterred
threat
liability
unconstitutional
conduct
activities
might
constitute
tort
fear
inhibits
long
involved
lawsuit
significant
money
judgment
fear
liability
certain
type
claim
thus
even
viewing
question
functionally
indeed
especially
viewing
question
functionally
basis
distinction
constitutional
torts
context
open
serious
question
even
logical
justification
raising
novel
distinction
far
clear
framers
thought
rights
sufficiently
susceptible
legislative
derogation
enshrined
constitution
necessarily
indicate
framers
likewise
intended
establish
immutable
hierarchy
rights
terms
importance
individuals
heinous
tort
surely
less
important
less
impact
aggrieved
individual
mere
technical
violation
constitutional
proscription
purports
find
support
distinction
therefore
result
principles
supposedly
underlying
marbury
madison
cranch
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
fact
cognate
state
officials
afforded
absolute
immunity
actions
brought
undoubtedly
rationales
superficial
appeal
none
withstands
careful
analysis
marbury
madison
supra
leaves
doubt
high
position
government
official
insulate
actions
judicial
review
case
like
numerous
others
followed
involved
relief
way
mandamus
injunction
present
case
respondent
sought
damages
amount
million
undoubtedly
force
argument
injunctive
relief
cases
determines
official
defendant
violated
legal
right
plaintiff
sets
matter
right
future
least
much
force
argument
threat
injunctive
relief
without
possibility
damages
case
cabinet
official
better
tailoring
competing
need
vindicate
individual
rights
one
hand
equally
vital
need
federal
officials
exercising
discretion
unafraid
take
vigorous
action
protect
public
interest
also
suggests
sweeping
terms
cause
action
recognized
bivens
drained
meaning
federal
officials
entitled
absolute
immunity
constitutional
transgressions
ante
bivens
slender
reed
rely
abrogating
official
immunity
officials
first
place
officials
susceptible
claims
bivens
historically
given
qualified
immunity
observed
pierson
ray
common
law
never
granted
police
officers
absolute
unqualified
immunity
event
certainly
follow
grant
absolute
immunity
secretary
assistant
secretary
agriculture
requires
like
grant
federal
law
enforcement
officials
even
importantly
federal
side
congress
thinks
redress
grievances
appropriate
generally
waive
sovereign
immunity
allowing
action
directly
allows
redress
deprivations
rights
time
limiting
outside
influences
might
inhibit
official
free
considered
exercise
official
powers
fact
congress
making
sorts
judgments
respect
causes
action
suggests
require
abrogation
absolute
immunity
amended
federal
tort
claims
act
see
ed
allow
suits
basis
certain
intentional
torts
committed
federal
investigative
law
enforcement
officers
also
looks
question
immunity
state
officials
causes
arising
quoting
concurring
opinion
anderson
nosser
effect
one
law
athens
another
rome
finds
reason
principles
likewise
apply
federal
officers
target
homilies
replace
analysis
difficult
area
however
even
moment
reflection
nature
action
purposes
made
abundantly
clear
prior
cases
supplies
compelling
reason
distinguishing
two
different
situations
first
place
made
clear
grant
absolute
immunity
executive
officials
federal
side
eviscerate
cause
action
recognized
bivens
officials
likely
defendants
action
generally
accorded
qualified
immunity
importantly
congress
expressly
waived
sovereign
immunity
type
suit
permits
direct
action
government
limiting
risks
might
dampen
ardor
resolute
irresponsible
unflinching
discharge
duties
federal
government
internally
supervise
check
officers
federal
government
situated
control
state
officials
strike
balance
however
hence
necessity
differing
standards
immunity
observed
district
columbia
carter
although
threads
many
thoughts
running
debates
act
seems
clear
act
concerned
designed
primarily
response
unwillingness
inability
state
governments
enforce
laws
violating
civil
rights
others
basic
rationale
underlying
congress
decision
enact
legislation
similar
respect
federal
officials
assumption
federal
government
keep
officers
control
biggest
concern
however
illogic
impracticality
today
decision
rather
potential
disruption
government
invites
steady
increase
litigation
much
directed
governmental
officials
virtually
framed
constitutional
terms
escape
notice
even
casual
observer
number
cases
brought
federal
courts
civil
rights
statutes
increased
see
director
administrative
office
courts
ann
table
ann
table
simply
defies
logic
common
experience
suggest
officials
back
minds
considering
official
course
pursue
likewise
strains
credulity
suggest
threat
inhibit
officials
taking
action
take
event
cases
grounds
action
doubtful
actor
timid
affected
today
decision
course
recognizes
problem
suggests
two
solutions
first
judges
ever
alert
artful
pleader
supposedly
weed
insubstantial
claims
ante
fear
shows
optimism
prescience
indeed
case
unquestionably
frivolous
extreme
belies
hope
direction
summary
judgment
affidavits
like
even
inappropriate
central
perhaps
inquiry
official
state
mind
see
wright
law
federal
courts
ed
feasible
resolve
motion
summary
judgment
cases
involving
state
mind
subin
goldsmith
second
solution
offered
even
less
satisfactory
holds
special
circumstances
demonstrated
absolute
immunity
essential
conduct
public
business
absolute
immunity
extended
ante
form
absolute
immunity
truth
exists
name
example
secretary
agriculture
may
never
know
inquiry
trial
whether
possibility
vexatious
constitutional
litigation
interfere
decisionmaking
process
secretary
obviously
think
twice
thrice
whether
prosecute
litigious
commodities
merchant
played
fast
loose
regulations
profit
careful
consideration
rights
every
individual
subject
jurisdiction
one
thing
timorous
reluctance
prosecute
individuals
reputation
using
litigation
defense
weapon
quite
another
since
cabinet
officials
mortal
likely
shall
get
precise
judgmental
balance
desired
human
failings
principles
spalding
dictate
absolute
immunity
accorded
concluded
executive
official
engaged
discharge
duties
imposed
upon
law
today
opinion
shouldered
formidable
task
insofar
seeks
justify
rejection
views
first
justice
harlan
expressed
opinion
spalding
vilas
supra
second
justice
harlan
expressed
opinions
barr
matteo
companion
case
howard
lyons
terms
juridical
jousting
terms
placement
judicial
hierarchy
taken
least
formidable
task
disregards
powerful
statement
judge
learned
hand
gregoire
biddle
history
surely
condemn
effort
achieve
finely
ground
product
judicial
mill
product
retain
necessary
ability
public
officials
govern
yet
assure
redress
victims
official
wrongs
system
redress
official
wrongs
indeed
capable
achieved
practice
surely
rejected
speaking
first
justice
harlan
speaking
second
justice
harlan
judge
learned
hand
speaking
appeals
second
circuit
judges
inexperienced
neophytes
lacked
vision
ability
define
immunity
doctrine
accomplish
result
thought
possible
obsequious
toadies
attitude
toward
officials
coordinate
branches
federal
government
see
prescience
today
inevitable
connection
doctrine
official
liability
immunity
forthrightly
accepted
possibility
occasional
failure
redress
claim
official
wrongdoing
result
doctrine
absolute
immunity
espoused
viewing
lesser
evil
impairment
ability
responsible
public
officials
govern
believe
history
look
approvingly
motives
reaching
result
today
believe
history
charitable
judgment
inevitable
result
doctrine
espoused
case
doctrine
seeks
gain
hold
middle
ground
deference
believe
teachings
least
equals
suggest
long
held
part
present
opinion
dissent
fear
result
one
two
evils
either
one
markedly
worse
effect
according
absolute
immunity
secretary
assistant
secretary
case
first
evils
significant
impairment
ability
responsible
public
officials
carry
duties
imposed
upon
law
evil
avoided
today
avoided
necessarily
unprincipled
erratic
judicial
screening
claims
made
case
adherence
form
law
departing
substance
either
one
evils
far
worse
occasional
failure
award
damages
caused
official
wrongdoing
frankly
openly
justified
rule
spalding
vilas
barr
matteo
gregoire
biddle
ultimate
irony
today
decision
area
official
immunity
body
law
fashioned
applied
judges
absolute
immunity
within
federal
system
extended
judges
prosecutors
functioning
judicial
system
see
bradley
fisher
wall
yaselli
goff
summarily
aff
similarly
interpreted
light
doctrines
official
immunity
judges
prosecutors
accorded
absolute
immunity
see
pierson
ray
stump
sparkman
imbler
pachtman
one
hazard
informed
guess
distinction
treatment
judges
prosecutors
one
hand
public
officials
obtains
mine
decide
common
law
know
personal
experience
sort
pressures
might
exist
decisionmakers
absence
absolute
immunity
may
know
may
forgotten
similar
pressures
exist
case
nonjudicial
public
officials
difficult
decisions
committed
cynical
among
us
might
unreasonably
feel
simply
another
unfortunate
example
judges
treating
part
judicial
machinery
lesser
breeds
without
law