harlow
fitzgerald
argued
november
decided
june
respondent
civil
damages
action
federal
district
based
alleged
unlawful
discharge
employment
department
air
force
petitioners
white
house
aides
former
president
nixon
codefendants
claimed
participated
alleged
conspiracy
violate
respondent
constitutional
statutory
rights
involved
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
extensive
pretrial
discovery
district
denied
motions
petitioners
former
president
summary
judgment
holding
inter
alia
petitioners
entitled
absolute
immunity
suit
independently
former
president
petitioners
appealed
denial
immunity
defense
appeals
dismissed
appeal
held
government
officials
whose
special
functions
constitutional
status
requires
complete
protection
suits
damages
including
certain
officials
executive
branch
prosecutors
similar
officials
see
butz
economou
president
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
entitled
defense
absolute
immunity
however
executive
officials
general
usually
entitled
qualified
immunity
recognition
qualified
immunity
defense
high
executives
reflects
attempt
balance
competing
values
importance
damages
remedy
protect
rights
citizens
also
need
protect
officials
required
exercise
discretion
related
public
interest
encouraging
vigorous
exercise
official
authority
scheuer
rhodes
federal
officials
seeking
absolute
immunity
personal
liability
unconstitutional
conduct
must
bear
burden
showing
public
policy
requires
exemption
scope
pp
public
policy
require
blanket
recognition
absolute
immunity
presidential
aides
cf
butz
supra
pp
rationale
gravel
held
speech
debate
clause
derivately
applicable
legislative
acts
senator
aide
privileged
performed
senator
mandate
derivative
absolute
immunity
president
chief
aides
functional
approach
immunity
law
immunity
protection
extends
justification
warrants
pp
absolute
immunity
might
justified
aides
entrusted
discretionary
authority
sensitive
areas
national
security
foreign
policy
special
functions
rationale
warrant
blanket
recognition
absolute
immunity
presidential
aides
performance
duties
establish
entitlement
absolute
immunity
presidential
aide
first
must
show
responsibilities
office
embraced
function
sensitive
require
total
shield
liability
must
demonstrate
discharging
protected
function
performing
act
liability
asserted
record
case
neither
petitioner
made
requisite
showing
absolute
immunity
however
possibility
petitioners
remand
satisfy
proper
standards
foreclosed
pp
petitioners
entitled
application
qualified
immunity
standard
permits
defeat
insubstantial
claims
without
resort
trial
pp
previously
recognized
subjective
aspect
qualified
good
faith
immunity
whereby
immunity
available
official
asserting
defense
took
action
malicious
intention
cause
deprivation
constitutional
rights
injury
wood
strickland
frequently
proved
incompatible
principle
insubstantial
claims
proceed
trial
henceforth
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
generally
shielded
liability
civil
damages
insofar
conduct
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
pp
case
remanded
district
reconsideration
question
whether
respondent
pretrial
showings
insufficient
withstand
petitioners
motion
summary
judgment
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
rehnquist
stevens
joined
brennan
filed
concurring
opinion
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
filed
separate
concurring
statement
post
rehnquist
filed
concurring
opinion
post
burger
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
elliot
richardson
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
glenn
gerstell
john
nolan
argued
cause
respondent
brief
samuel
perkins
arthur
spitzer
louis
alan
clark
filed
brief
government
accountability
project
institute
policy
studies
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
solicitor
general
lee
roger
marzulla
william
mellor
iii
mountain
legal
foundation
john
armor
richard
mayberry
national
taxpayers
legal
fund
thomas
madden
senator
orrin
hatch
et
al
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
issue
case
scope
immunity
available
senior
aides
advisers
president
suit
damages
based
upon
official
acts
suit
civil
damages
petitioners
bryce
harlow
alexander
butterfield
alleged
participated
conspiracy
violate
constitutional
statutory
rights
respondent
ernest
fitzgerald
respondent
avers
petitioners
entered
conspiracy
capacities
senior
white
house
aides
former
president
richard
nixon
alleged
conspiracy
involved
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
facts
need
repeated
detail
respondent
claims
harlow
joined
conspiracy
role
presidential
aide
principally
responsible
congressional
relations
conclusion
discovery
supporting
evidence
remained
inferential
evidence
harlow
conspiratorial
activity
respondent
relies
heavily
series
conversations
harlow
discussed
fitzgerald
dismissal
air
force
secretary
robert
seamans
evidence
supportive
fitzgerald
claims
consists
recorded
conversation
president
later
voiced
tentative
recollection
harlow
canning
fitzgerald
disputing
fitzgerald
contentions
harlow
argues
exhaustive
discovery
adduced
direct
evidence
involvement
wrongful
activity
avers
secretary
seamans
advised
considerations
efficiency
required
fitzgerald
removal
reduction
force
despite
anticipated
adverse
congressional
reaction
harlow
asserts
reason
believe
conspiracy
existed
contends
took
actions
good
faith
petitioner
butterfield
also
alleged
entered
conspiracy
later
may
employed
deputy
assistance
president
deputy
chief
staff
haldeman
butterfield
circulated
white
house
memorandum
month
claimed
learned
fitzgerald
planned
blow
whistle
shoddy
purchasing
practices
exposing
practices
public
view
fitzgerald
characterizes
memorandum
evidence
butterfield
commenced
efforts
secure
fitzgerald
retaliatory
dismissal
evidence
butterfield
participated
conspiracy
conceal
unlawful
discharge
prevent
reemployment
fitzgerald
cites
communications
butterfield
haldeman
december
january
president
promised
press
conference
inquire
fitzgerald
dismissal
haldeman
solicited
butterfield
recommendations
subsequent
memorandum
emphasizing
importance
loyalty
butterfield
counseled
offering
fitzgerald
another
job
administration
time
part
butterfield
denies
involved
decision
concerning
fitzgerald
employment
status
haldeman
sought
advice
december
month
fitzgerald
termination
scheduled
announced
publicly
air
force
butterfield
never
communicated
views
fitzgerald
official
defense
department
argues
generally
nearly
eight
years
discovery
failed
turn
evidence
caused
injury
fitzgerald
together
codefendant
richard
nixon
petitioners
harlow
butterfield
moved
summary
judgment
february
denying
motion
district
upheld
legal
sufficiency
fitzgerald
bivens
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
claim
first
amendment
inferred
statutory
causes
action
supp
iv
found
genuine
issues
disputed
fact
remained
resolution
trial
also
ruled
petitioners
entitled
absolute
immunity
app
pet
cert
independently
former
president
nixon
petitioners
invoked
collateral
order
doctrine
appealed
denial
immunity
defense
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
appeals
dismissed
appeal
without
opinion
never
determined
immunity
available
senior
aides
advisers
president
granted
certiorari
ii
reiterated
today
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
decisions
consistently
held
government
officials
entitled
form
immunity
suits
damages
recognized
common
law
public
officers
require
protection
shield
undue
interference
duties
potentially
disabling
threats
liability
decisions
recognized
immunity
defenses
two
kinds
officials
whose
special
functions
constitutional
status
requires
complete
protection
suit
recognized
defense
absolute
immunity
absolute
immunity
legislators
legislative
functions
see
eastland
servicemen
fund
judges
judicial
functions
see
stump
sparkman
well
settled
decisions
also
extended
absolute
immunity
certain
officials
executive
branch
include
prosecutors
similar
officials
see
butz
economou
executive
officers
engaged
adjudicative
functions
president
see
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
executive
officials
general
however
cases
make
plain
qualified
immunity
represents
norm
scheuer
rhodes
acknowledged
high
officials
require
greater
protection
less
complex
discretionary
responsibilities
nonetheless
held
governor
aides
receive
requisite
protection
qualified
immunity
butz
economou
supra
extended
approach
scheuer
high
federal
officials
executive
branch
discussing
detail
considerations
also
underlain
decision
scheuer
explained
recognition
qualified
immunity
defense
high
executives
reflected
attempt
balance
competing
values
importance
damages
remedy
protect
rights
citizens
also
need
protect
officials
required
exercise
discretion
related
public
interest
encouraging
vigorous
exercise
official
authority
without
discounting
adverse
consequences
denying
high
officials
absolute
immunity
private
lawsuits
alleging
constitutional
violations
consequences
found
sufficient
spalding
vilas
barr
matteo
warrant
extension
officials
absolute
immunity
suits
common
law
emphasized
expectation
insubstantial
suits
need
proceed
trial
insubstantial
lawsuits
quickly
terminated
federal
courts
alert
possibilities
artful
pleading
unless
complaint
compensable
claim
relief
survive
motion
dismiss
moreover
recognized
scheuer
damages
suits
concerning
constitutional
violations
need
proceed
trial
terminated
properly
supported
motion
summary
judgment
based
defense
immunity
responding
motion
plaintiffs
may
play
dog
manger
firm
application
federal
rules
civil
procedure
ensure
federal
officials
harassed
frivolous
lawsuits
citations
omitted
iii
petitioners
argue
entitled
blanket
protection
absolute
immunity
incident
offices
presidential
aides
deciding
claim
write
empty
page
butz
economou
supra
secretary
agriculture
cabinet
official
directly
accountable
president
asserted
defense
absolute
official
immunity
suit
civil
damages
rejected
claim
question
power
importance
secretary
office
doubt
importance
president
loyal
efficient
subordinates
executing
duties
office
yet
found
factors
alone
insufficient
justify
absolute
immunity
greater
power
high
officials
reasoned
affords
greater
potential
regime
lawless
conduct
damages
actions
high
officials
therefore
important
means
vindicating
constitutional
guarantees
ibid
moreover
concluded
untenable
draw
distinction
purposes
immunity
law
suits
brought
state
officials
suits
brought
directly
constitution
federal
officials
decided
butz
members
cabinet
ordinarily
enjoy
qualified
immunity
suit
conclude
today
equally
untenable
hold
absolute
immunity
incident
office
every
presidential
subordinate
based
white
house
members
cabinet
direct
subordinates
president
frequently
greater
responsibilities
president
nation
white
house
staff
considerations
supported
decision
butz
apply
equal
force
case
disparagement
offices
held
petitioners
hold
presidential
aides
like
members
cabinet
generally
entitled
qualified
immunity
disputing
controlling
authority
butz
petitioners
rely
principles
developed
gravel
gravel
endorsed
view
literally
impossible
members
congress
perform
legislative
tasks
without
help
aides
assistants
work
aides
critical
members
performance
must
treated
latter
alter
egos
done
held
speech
debate
clause
derivatively
applicable
legislative
acts
senator
aide
privileged
performed
senator
petitioners
contend
rationale
gravel
mandates
similar
derivative
immunity
chief
aides
president
emphasizing
president
must
delegate
large
measure
authority
execute
duties
office
argue
recognition
derivative
absolute
immunity
made
essential
considerations
support
absolute
immunity
president
petitioners
argument
without
force
ultimately
however
sweeps
far
president
aides
derivatively
immune
essential
functioning
presidency
members
cabinet
presidential
subordinates
whose
essential
roles
acknowledged
constitution
absolutely
immune
yet
implicitly
rejected
derivative
immunity
butz
moreover
general
cases
followed
functional
approach
immunity
law
recognized
judicial
prosecutorial
legislative
functions
require
absolute
immunity
protection
extended
justification
warrant
gravel
example
emphasized
senators
aides
absolutely
immune
performing
acts
legislative
nature
taking
acts
even
official
capacity
see
hutchinson
proxmire
cases
involving
judges
prosecutors
followed
similar
line
undifferentiated
extension
absolute
derivative
immunity
president
aides
therefore
reconciled
functional
approach
characterized
immunity
decisions
indeed
including
gravel
petitioners
also
assert
entitlement
immunity
based
special
functions
white
house
aides
form
argument
accords
analytical
approach
cases
aides
entrusted
discretionary
authority
sensitive
areas
national
security
foreign
policy
absolute
immunity
might
well
justified
protect
unhesitating
performance
functions
vital
national
interest
special
functions
rationale
warrant
blanket
recognition
absolute
immunity
presidential
aides
performance
duties
conclusion
follows
decision
butz
establishes
executive
official
claim
absolute
immunity
must
justified
reference
public
interest
special
functions
office
mere
fact
high
station
butz
also
identifies
location
burden
proof
burden
justifying
absolute
immunity
rests
official
asserting
claim
course
occasion
identify
presidential
aide
might
carry
burden
general
requisites
familiar
cases
order
establish
entitlement
absolute
immunity
presidential
aide
first
must
show
responsibilities
office
embraced
function
sensitive
require
total
shield
liability
must
demonstrate
discharging
protected
function
performing
act
liability
asserted
applying
standards
claims
advanced
petitioners
harlow
butterfield
conclude
record
us
either
shown
public
policy
requires
functions
office
exemption
absolute
scope
butz
assuming
petitioners
functions
absolute
immunity
warranted
conclude
acts
charged
lawsuit
taken
lie
within
protected
area
however
foreclose
possibility
petitioners
remand
satisfy
standards
properly
applicable
claims
iv
even
establish
official
functions
require
absolute
immunity
petitioners
assert
public
policy
least
mandates
application
qualified
immunity
standard
permit
defeat
insubstantial
claims
without
resort
trial
agree
resolution
immunity
questions
inherently
requires
balance
evils
inevitable
available
alternative
situations
abuse
office
action
damages
may
offer
realistic
avenue
vindication
constitutional
guarantees
butz
economou
supra
see
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
people
bivens
shoes
damages
nothing
recognition
required
denial
absolute
immunity
public
officers
time
however
disputed
seriously
claims
frequently
run
innocent
well
guilty
cost
defendant
officials
society
whole
social
costs
include
expenses
litigation
diversion
official
energy
pressing
public
issues
deterrence
able
citizens
acceptance
public
office
finally
danger
fear
sued
dampen
ardor
resolute
irresponsible
public
officials
unflinching
discharge
duties
gregoire
biddle
cert
denied
identifying
qualified
immunity
best
attainable
accommodation
competing
values
butz
supra
scheuer
relied
assumption
standard
permit
nsubstantial
lawsuits
quickly
terminated
see
hanrahan
hampton
powell
concurring
part
dissenting
part
yet
petitioners
advance
persuasive
arguments
dismissal
insubstantial
lawsuits
without
trial
factor
presupposed
balance
competing
interests
struck
prior
cases
requires
adjustment
good
faith
standard
established
decisions
qualified
good
faith
immunity
affirmative
defense
must
pleaded
defendant
official
gomez
toledo
decisions
established
good
faith
defense
objective
subjective
aspect
objective
element
involves
presumptive
knowledge
respect
basic
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
wood
strickland
subjective
component
refers
permissible
intentions
ibid
characteristically
defined
elements
identifying
circumstances
qualified
immunity
available
referring
objective
subjective
elements
held
qualified
immunity
defeated
official
knew
reasonably
known
action
took
within
sphere
official
responsibility
violate
constitutional
rights
plaintiff
took
action
malicious
intention
cause
deprivation
constitutional
rights
injury
ibid
emphasis
added
subjective
element
defense
frequently
proved
incompatible
admonition
butz
insubstantial
claims
proceed
trial
rule
federal
rules
civil
procedure
provides
disputed
questions
fact
ordinarily
may
decided
motions
summary
judgment
official
subjective
good
faith
considered
question
fact
courts
regarded
inherently
requiring
resolution
jury
context
butz
attempted
balancing
competing
values
clear
substantial
costs
attend
litigation
subjective
good
faith
government
officials
general
costs
subjecting
officials
risks
trial
distraction
officials
governmental
duties
inhibition
discretionary
action
deterrence
able
people
public
service
special
costs
subjective
inquiries
kind
immunity
generally
available
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
contrast
thought
processes
accompanying
ministerial
tasks
judgments
surrounding
discretionary
action
almost
inevitably
influenced
decisionmaker
experiences
values
emotions
variables
explain
part
questions
subjective
intent
rarely
decided
summary
judgment
yet
also
frame
background
often
clear
end
relevant
evidence
judicial
inquiry
subjective
motivation
therefore
may
entail
discovery
deposing
numerous
persons
including
official
professional
colleagues
inquiries
kind
peculiarly
disruptive
effective
government
consistently
balance
aimed
butz
conclude
today
bare
allegations
malice
suffice
subject
government
officials
either
costs
trial
burdens
discovery
therefore
hold
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
generally
shielded
liability
civil
damages
insofar
conduct
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
see
procunier
navarette
wood
strickland
reliance
objective
reasonableness
official
conduct
measured
reference
clearly
established
law
avoid
excessive
disruption
government
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
summary
judgment
judge
appropriately
may
determine
currently
applicable
law
whether
law
clearly
established
time
action
occurred
law
time
clearly
established
official
reasonably
expected
anticipate
subsequent
legal
developments
fairly
said
know
law
forbade
conduct
previously
identified
unlawful
threshold
immunity
question
resolved
discovery
allowed
law
clearly
established
immunity
defense
ordinarily
fail
since
reasonably
competent
public
official
know
law
governing
conduct
nevertheless
official
pleading
defense
claims
extraordinary
circumstances
prove
neither
knew
known
relevant
legal
standard
defense
sustained
defense
turn
primarily
objective
factors
defining
limits
qualified
immunity
essentially
objective
terms
provide
license
lawless
conduct
public
interest
deterrence
unlawful
conduct
compensation
victims
remains
protected
test
focuses
objective
legal
reasonableness
official
acts
official
expected
know
certain
conduct
violate
statutory
constitutional
rights
made
hesitate
person
suffers
injury
caused
conduct
may
cause
action
official
duties
legitimately
require
action
clearly
established
rights
implicated
public
interest
may
better
served
action
taken
independence
without
fear
consequences
pierson
ray
case
petitioners
asked
us
hold
respondent
pretrial
showings
insufficient
survive
motion
summary
judgment
think
appropriate
however
remand
case
district
reconsideration
issue
light
opinion
trial
familiar
record
far
developed
also
better
situated
make
findings
may
necessary
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
action
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
record
reveals
secretary
seamans
called
harlow
may
inquire
likely
congressional
reaction
draft
reorganization
plan
cause
fitzgerald
dismissal
according
seamans
testimony
air
force
ask
harlow
pass
judgment
action
asked
impact
relationship
congress
app
deposition
robert
seamans
aide
harlow
responded
sensitive
item
hill
recommendation
air
force
proceed
make
change
time
air
force
persisted
seamans
spoke
harlow
least
one
subsequent
occasion
spring
record
also
establishes
secretary
seamans
called
harlow
november
shortly
public
announcement
fitzgerald
impending
dismissal
december
see
see
transcript
recorded
conversation
richard
nixon
ronald
ziegler
february
conversation
president
january
john
ehrlichman
also
recalled
harlow
discussed
fitzgerald
case
president
see
transcript
recorded
conversation
richard
nixon
john
ehrlichman
january
conversation
president
asserted
spoken
harlow
fitzgerald
matter
see
parties
continue
dispute
whether
nixon
relevant
moments
discussion
confusing
fitzgerald
case
another
dismissed
employee
president
explicitly
stated
one
point
previously
confused
see
see
defendants
memorandum
points
authorities
support
motion
summary
judgment
civ
dc
support
version
events
harlow
relies
particularly
deposition
testimony
air
force
secretary
seamans
stated
regarded
abolition
fitzgerald
position
necessary
improve
efficiency
financial
management
office
air
force
never
received
white
house
instruction
regarding
fitzgerald
case
app
harlow
also
disputes
probative
value
richard
nixon
recorded
remark
harlow
supported
fitzgerald
firing
harlow
emphasizes
tentativeness
president
statement
president
query
whether
harlow
canning
fitzgerald
white
house
press
secretary
ronald
ziegler
fact
gave
negative
reply
think
bryce
may
way
president
respond
ziegler
comment
record
establishes
butterfield
worked
office
immediately
adjacent
oval
office
almost
daily
contact
president
march
left
white
house
become
administrator
federal
aviation
administration
butterfield
reported
information
referred
federal
bureau
investigation
memorandum
butterfield
reported
received
information
word
several
mouths
allegedly
senior
official
originally
evidently
fitzgerald
attended
recent
meeting
national
democratic
coalition
revealed
intentions
labor
representative
fortunately
us
unsympathetic
ibid
memorandum
quoted
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
sent
defense
department
see
memorandum
support
summary
judgment
supra
history
fitzgerald
litigation
recounted
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
butterfield
named
defendant
initial
civil
action
filed
fitzgerald
harlow
named
first
time
respondent
second
amended
complaint
july
first
statutes
supp
iv
provides
generally
right
employees
furnish
information
either
house
congress
committee
member
thereof
may
interfered
denied
second
criminal
statute
making
crime
obstruct
congressional
testimony
neither
expressly
creates
private
right
sue
damages
petitioners
argue
district
erred
finding
private
cause
action
inferred
either
statute
special
factors
present
context
federal
relationship
preclude
recognition
respondent
bivens
action
first
amendment
legal
sufficiency
respondent
asserted
causes
action
however
question
view
properly
presented
decision
present
posture
case
see
infra
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
jurisdiction
challenged
basis
district
order
denying
petitioners
claim
absolute
immunity
appealable
final
order
appeals
dismissal
petitioners
appeal
establishes
case
never
appeals
within
meaning
discussion
nixon
establishes
jurisdiction
case
well
need
consider
challenges
opinion
petitioners
also
claim
support
cases
followed
gravel
holding
congressional
employees
derivatively
entitled
legislative
immunity
provided
senators
representatives
speech
debate
clause
see
eastland
servicemen
fund
doe
mcmillan
see
art
ii
president
may
require
opinion
writing
principal
officer
executive
departments
upon
subject
relating
duties
respective
offices
chief
justice
post
argues
senior
presidential
aides
work
intimately
president
daily
basis
cabinet
officer
butz
therefore
controlling
recent
years
however
men
henry
kissinger
james
schlesinger
served
presidential
advisory
cabinet
positions
kissinger
held
posts
simultaneously
view
impossible
generalize
role
offices
individual
president
administration
without
reference
functions
particular
officeholders
assigned
president
butz
economou
distinguished
basis
see
virginia
consumers
union
stump
sparkman
imbler
pachtman
reserved
question
whether
absolute
immunity
extend
aspects
prosecutor
responsibility
cast
role
administrator
investigative
officer
since
time
courts
appeals
generally
ruled
prosecutors
enjoy
absolute
immunity
acts
taken
capacities
see
mancini
lester
forsyth
kleindienst
least
implicitly
drawn
distinction
extending
absolute
immunity
executive
officials
engaged
functions
see
butz
economou
decision
today
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
way
abrogates
general
rule
explained
opinion
recognition
absolute
immunity
president
acts
office
derives
principal
part
factors
unique
constitutional
responsibilities
station
suits
officials
including
presidential
aides
generally
invoke
considerations
extent
suits
president
cf
nixon
ourts
traditionally
shown
utmost
deference
presidential
responsibilities
foreign
policy
military
affairs
claims
privilege
area
receive
higher
degree
deference
invocations
president
generalized
interest
confidentiality
katz
white
concurring
require
warrant
procedure
magistrate
judgment
president
chief
legal
officer
attorney
general
considered
requirements
national
security
authorized
electronic
surveillance
reasonable
emphasis
added
gravel
points
similar
conclusion
fairly
may
assume
aides
assigned
act
presidential
alter
egos
exercise
functions
absolute
immunity
essential
conduct
public
business
butz
supra
cf
gravel
supra
derivative
immunity
extends
acts
within
central
role
speech
debate
clause
permitting
free
legislative
speech
debate
analogy
gravel
derivative
claim
presidential
immunity
strongest
central
presidential
domains
foreign
policy
national
security
president
discharge
singularly
vital
mandate
without
delegating
functions
nearly
sensitive
elsewhere
relevant
judicial
inquiries
encompass
considerations
public
policy
importance
confirmed
either
reference
common
law
likely
constitutional
heritage
structure
see
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
need
inquiry
implicit
butz
economou
supra
see
imbler
pachtman
supra
cases
involving
immunity
speech
debate
clause
inquired
explicitly
whether
particular
acts
activities
qualified
protection
clause
see
hutchinson
proxmire
doe
mcmillan
gravel
supra
see
generally
schuck
suing
servants
congress
liability
public
officials
damages
rev
importance
consideration
hardly
needs
emphasis
noted
risk
imposed
upon
political
officials
must
defend
actions
motives
jury
see
lake
country
estates
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
tenney
brandhove
observed
tenney
times
political
passion
dishonest
vindictive
motives
readily
attributed
readily
believed
although
gomez
presented
question
context
action
analysis
indicates
immunity
must
also
pleaded
defense
actions
constitution
laws
see
gomez
decide
party
bore
burden
proof
issue
good
faith
rehnquist
concurring
wood
explicitly
limited
holding
circumstances
school
board
member
specific
context
school
discipline
stripped
claimed
immunity
action
subsequent
cases
however
quoted
wood
formulation
general
statement
qualified
immunity
standard
see
procunier
navarette
quoted
baker
mccollan
rule
summary
judgment
shall
rendered
forthwith
pleadings
depositions
answers
interrogatories
admissions
file
together
affidavits
show
genuine
issue
material
fact
moving
party
entitled
judgment
matter
law
determining
whether
summary
judgment
proper
ordinarily
must
look
record
light
favorable
party
opposing
motion
drawing
inferences
favorable
party
poller
columbia
broadcasting
system
landrum
moats
duchesne
sugarman
cf
hutchinson
proxmire
questioning
whether
existence
actual
malice
issue
fact
may
properly
decided
summary
judgment
suit
alleging
libel
public
figure
suits
president
closest
aides
discovery
kind
frequently
implicate
concerns
recognized
nixon
president
assist
must
free
explore
alternatives
process
shaping
policies
making
decisions
way
many
unwilling
express
except
privately
considerations
justifying
presumptive
privilege
presidential
communications
privilege
fundamental
operation
government
inextricably
rooted
separation
powers
constitution
judge
gesell
observed
concurring
opinion
halperin
kissinger
app
aff
pertinent
part
equally
divided
close
eyes
fact
increasing
frequency
jurisdiction
throughout
country
plaintiffs
filing
suits
seeking
damage
awards
high
government
officials
personal
capacities
based
alleged
constitutional
torts
suit
almost
invariably
results
officials
colleagues
subjected
extensive
discovery
traditionally
protected
areas
deliberations
preparatory
formulation
government
policy
intimate
thought
processes
communications
presidential
cabinet
levels
discover
sic
without
considerable
cost
officials
involved
difficult
ingenious
plaintiff
counsel
create
material
issue
fact
element
immunity
defense
subtle
questions
constitutional
law
decisionmaker
mental
processes
involved
sentence
casual
document
difference
recollection
regard
particular
policy
conversation
held
long
ago
usually
normal
summary
judgment
standards
sufficient
force
trial
effect
development
upon
willingness
individuals
serve
country
obvious
case
involves
issue
concerning
elements
immunity
available
state
officials
sued
constitutional
violations
found
previously
however
untenable
draw
distinction
purposes
immunity
law
suits
brought
state
officials
suits
brought
directly
constitution
federal
officials
butz
economou
decision
way
diminishes
absolute
immunity
currently
available
officials
whose
functions
held
require
protection
scope
case
involves
claim
congress
expressed
intent
impose
fault
tort
liability
high
federal
officials
violations
particular
statutes
constitution
procunier
navarette
need
define
circumstances
state
law
evaluated
reference
opinions
courts
appeals
local
district
cf
procunier
navarette
supra
quoting
wood
strickland
reasonably
expected
aware
constitutional
right
yet
declared
petitioners
act
disregard
established
law
conduct
reasonably
characterized
good
faith
emphasize
decision
applies
suits
civil
damages
arising
actions
within
scope
official
duties
objective
good
faith
express
view
conditions
injunctive
declaratory
relief
might
available
butz
admonished
insubstantial
suits
high
public
officials
allowed
proceed
trial
see
schuck
supra
reiterate
admonition
insubstantial
lawsuits
undermine
effectiveness
government
contemplated
constitutional
structure
firm
application
federal
rules
civil
procedure
fully
warranted
cases
petitioners
also
urged
us
prior
remand
rule
legal
sufficiency
respondent
implied
causes
action
supp
iv
bivens
claim
first
amendment
view
petitioners
argument
statutory
question
insubstantial
cf
merrill
lynch
pierce
fenner
smith
curran
controlling
question
implication
statutory
causes
action
whether
congress
affirmatively
intended
create
damages
remedy
middlesex
county
sewerage
auth
national
sea
clammers
texas
industries
radcliff
materials
bivens
question
cf
bush
lucas
holding
unique
relationship
federal
government
civil
service
employees
special
consideration
counsels
hesitation
inferring
bivens
remedy
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
however
took
jurisdiction
case
resolve
immunity
question
collateral
order
doctrine
therefore
think
appropriate
leave
questions
fuller
consideration
district
necessary
appeals
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
concurring
agree
substantive
standard
announced
today
imposing
liability
defendant
knew
known
constitutionally
violative
effect
actions
ante
standard
allow
official
actually
knows
violating
law
escape
liability
actions
even
reasonably
expected
know
actually
know
ante
thus
clever
unusually
violator
constitutional
rights
evade
punishment
crimes
also
agree
standard
applies
across
board
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
ante
write
separately
note
given
standard
seems
inescapable
measure
discovery
may
sometimes
required
determine
exactly
defendant
know
time
actions
respect
issue
us
similar
addressed
herbert
lando
observed
erect
impenetrable
barrier
plaintiff
use
evidence
side
case
matter
substance
particularly
defendants
prone
assert
goo
aith
course
already
noted
ante
summary
judgment
readily
available
defendants
whenever
state
law
ambiguous
time
alleged
violation
known
thus
liability
ensue
view
summary
judgment
also
readily
available
whenever
plaintiff
prove
threshold
matter
violation
constitutional
rights
actually
occurred
see
reason
discovery
defendants
knowledge
deferred
trial
judge
pending
decision
motion
defendants
summary
judgment
grounds
cf
herbert
lando
supra
powell
concurring
justice
brennan
justice
white
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
concurring
join
opinion
dissented
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
disassociate
implication
opinion
present
case
nixon
fitzgerald
correctly
decided
justice
rehnquist
concurring
time
majority
willing
holding
butz
economou
shall
join
undertaking
alacrity
time
comes
agree
opinion
case
properly
disposes
issues
presented
therefore
join
chief
justice
burger
dissenting
today
decides
nixon
fitzgerald
ante
taken
granted
years
implicit
constitution
president
absolute
immunity
civil
suits
arising
official
acts
chief
executive
agree
fully
absolute
immunity
official
acts
president
like
executive
privilege
fundamental
operation
government
inextricably
rooted
separation
powers
constitution
nixon
case
decides
senior
aides
president
derivative
immunity
president
loss
however
reconcile
conclusion
holding
gravel
reads
butz
economou
resolving
question
butz
clearly
distinguishable
gravel
held
implicit
constitution
aides
members
congress
absolute
immunity
acts
performed
members
relation
legislative
function
viewed
aides
immunity
deriving
speech
debate
clause
provides
speech
debate
either
house
senators
representatives
shall
questioned
place
art
cl
emphasis
added
read
literally
clause
course
limit
absolute
immunity
member
speech
debate
within
chamber
read
much
plain
language
clause
says
nothing
legislative
acts
outside
chambers
concluded
constitution
grants
absolute
immunity
legislative
acts
either
house
committees
conferences
reports
legislative
activities
clause
mention
immunity
congressional
aides
yet
going
far
beyond
words
found
constitution
held
member
aides
implement
policies
decisions
member
entitled
absolute
immunity
member
hardly
overstatement
say
thus
avoided
literalistic
approach
gravel
supra
instead
looked
structure
constitution
evolution
function
legislative
branch
short
drew
immunity
legislative
aides
functional
analysis
legislative
process
context
constitution
taken
whole
light
realities
neither
presidents
members
congress
perform
constitutional
duties
personally
properly
recognized
gravel
central
purpose
member
absolute
immunity
diminished
frustrated
legislative
aides
also
protected
broad
immunity
speaking
gravel
justice
white
agreed
appeals
literally
impossible
view
complexities
modern
legislative
process
congress
almost
constantly
session
matters
legislative
concern
constantly
proliferating
members
congress
perform
legislative
tasks
without
help
aides
assistants
work
aides
critical
members
performance
must
treated
latter
alter
egos
recognized
central
role
speech
debate
clause
prevent
intimidation
legislators
executive
accountability
possibly
hostile
judiciary
inevitably
diminished
frustrated
emphasis
added
made
reality
matter
constitutional
jurisprudence
conceivably
hold
president
represents
vastly
larger
constituency
member
congress
alter
egos
comparable
immunity
perform
constitutional
duties
assigned
executive
literally
impossible
view
complexities
modern
executive
process
without
help
aides
assistants
words
reflect
precise
analysis
gravel
analysis
applies
least
much
force
president
primary
layer
senior
aides
president
like
senator
alter
egos
literally
president
elbow
offices
feet
hundred
feet
desk
president
like
member
congress
may
see
personal
aides
many
times
one
day
indeed
president
arms
fingers
aid
performing
constitutional
duty
see
laws
faithfully
executed
like
member
congress
vastly
greater
scale
president
personally
implement
fraction
policies
decisions
inexplicable
reason
declines
recognize
realities
workings
office
president
despite
cogent
recognition
gravel
concerning
realities
workings
members
congress
absent
equal
protection
president
aides
presidents
free
risks
intimidation
congress
accountability
possibly
hostile
judiciary
gravel
today
holding
case
functioning
presidency
inevitably
diminished
frustrated
ibid
precisely
public
policy
considerations
relies
nixon
fitzgerald
relied
recently
gravel
fully
applicable
senior
presidential
aides
opinion
nixon
fitzgerald
correctly
points
president
subject
suit
awareness
personal
vulnerability
suit
frequently
distract
president
public
duties
detriment
president
office
also
nation
presidency
designed
serve
ante
negative
incentive
permeate
inner
workings
office
president
chief
executive
alter
egos
protected
derivatively
immunity
president
addition
exposure
civil
liability
official
acts
result
constant
judicial
questioning
judicial
proceedings
pretrial
discovery
inner
workings
presidential
office
beyond
necessary
maintain
traditional
checks
balances
constitutional
structure
challenge
dissenters
nixon
fitzgerald
join
instant
holding
say
effectiveness
presidential
aides
inevitably
diminished
frustrated
gravel
supra
must
weigh
every
act
decision
relation
risks
future
lawsuits
gravel
took
note
burdens
congressional
aides
stress
long
hours
heavy
responsibilities
constant
exposure
harassment
political
arena
suggesting
stresses
less
presidential
aides
construing
constitution
give
qualified
immunity
senior
presidential
aides
give
key
alter
egos
lawsuits
winnable
lawsuits
perhaps
lawsuits
nonetheless
stress
effort
disperse
drain
energies
purses
witness
new
filing
many
cases
week
many
utterly
frivolous
even
bizarre
yet
defending
party
many
cases
may
spent
become
liable
thousands
dollars
litigation
expense
hundreds
thousands
cases
disposed
without
reaching
see
myriad
irresponsible
frivolous
cases
regularly
filed
american
courts
magnitude
potential
risks
attending
acceptance
public
office
emerges
potential
risks
inevitably
factor
discouraging
able
men
women
entering
public
service
judges
collectively
held
common
law
provides
us
absolute
immunity
respect
judicial
acts
however
erroneous
see
stump
sparkman
lowest
ranking
judges
thousands
prosecutors
thousands
congressional
aides
aggregate
less
entitled
greater
protection
two
senior
aides
president
butz
economou
dictate
senior
presidential
aides
given
qualified
immunity
butz
held
cabinet
officer
exercising
discretion
entitled
absolute
immunity
need
abandon
holding
senior
presidential
aide
works
intimately
president
daily
basis
cabinet
officer
directly
implementing
presidential
decisions
literally
hour
hour
dissent
today
nixon
fitzgerald
justice
white
applies
dissenting
view
butz
office
president
ante
however
suggests
president
cabinet
officers
serve
pleasure
president
plane
constitutionally
wholly
fails
distinguish
role
president
elbow
aides
role
cabinet
officers
department
heads
rather
alter
egos
sense
inconsistent
hold
president
personal
aides
greater
immunity
cabinet
officers
analysis
gravel
demonstrates
question
derivative
immunity
depend
person
rank
position
hierarchy
function
performed
person
relationship
person
superior
cabinet
officers
clearly
outrank
attorneys
yet
qualified
immunity
accorded
former
absolute
immunity
latter
rank
important
extent
rank
determines
function
performed
function
senior
presidential
aides
alter
egos
president
integral
inseparable
part
function
president
justice
white
clearly
correct
gravel
stating
members
congress
perform
legislative
tasks
without
help
aides
assistants
work
aides
critical
members
performance
must
treated
latter
alter
egos
ignoring
gravel
engaging
wooden
application
butz
significantly
undermines
functioning
office
president
opinion
nixon
today
clear
presidential
immunity
derives
constitution
much
congressional
immunity
comes
source
rationally
one
rule
congressional
aides
another
presidential
aides
simply
initial
absolute
immunity
derives
different
aspects
constitution
find
inexplicable
makes
effort
demonstrate
chief
executive
nation
assured
senior
staff
aides
protection
aides
members
house
senate
noted
nixon
fitzgerald
presidential
immunity
official
acts
office
never
seriously
questioned
recently
see
ante
burger
concurring
indeed
irreconcilable
conflict
gravel
butz
obligation
try
harmonize
holdings
least
tender
reasonable
explanation
done
neither
senator
allotment
staff
varies
significantly
range
persons
addition
committee
staff
aides
perform
important
legislative
functions
members
doc
pp
house
members
roughly
assistants
one
time
addition
committee
staff
aides
doc
pp
early
years
republic
members
congress
presidents
performed
duties
without
staffs
aides
assistants
washington
jefferson
spent
much
time
plantations
congress
even
appropriate
funds
presidential
clerk
lincoln
opened
mail
cleveland
answered
phone
white
house
wilson
regularly
typed
speeches
wayne
legislative
presidency
whatever
may
situation
beginning
washington
adams
jefferson
know
today
presidency
functions
staff
exercises
wide
spectrum
authority
discretion
directly
assists
president
carrying
constitutional
duties
justice
white
dissent
nixon
fitzgerald
today
expresses
great
concern
president
may
cause
serious
injury
number
citizens
even
though
knows
conduct
violates
statute
ante
dissent
wholly
overlooks
however
plain
fact
absolute
immunity
protect
president
acts
outside
constitutional
function
president
remedies
checks
presidential
abuse
also
check
abuses
comparatively
small
group
senior
aides
act
alter
egos
president
aides
serve
pleasure
president
thus
may
removed
president
congressional
public
scrutiny
maintain
constant
pervasive
check
abuses
aides
may
prosecuted
criminally
see
nixon
ante
however
criminal
prosecution
commenced
absent
careful
consideration
grand
jury
request
prosecutor
check
present
respect
commencement
civil
suits
advocates
subject
realistic
accountability
executive
branch
may
matter
grace
supply
legal
assistance
department
justice
longstanding
policy
representing
federal
officers
civil
suits
involving
conduct
performed
within
scope
employment
addition
department
provides
retention
private
legal
counsel
necessary
see
senate
subcommittee
administrative
practice
procedure
committee
judiciary
justice
department
retention
private
legal
counsel
represent
federal
employees
civil
lawsuits
sess
comm
print
congress
frequently
pays
expenses
defending
members
even
acts
wholly
outside
legislative
function
trouble
reconciling
gravel
kilbourn
thompson
kilbourn
house
representatives
held
share
absolute
immunity
enjoyed
members
congress
ordered
officer
act