Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): The Scope of Presidential Immunity
By Vincent Rhys DaRin
Introduction
Before a congressional committee in 1968, Ernest Fitzgerald testified about exceeding costs in the manufacturing of the C-5A transport plane. Fitzgerald was a civilian working in conjunction with the United States Air Force as an analyst. Approximately one year after testifying, Fitzgerald was fired from his position. Nixon publicly claimed accountability for Fitzgerald’s termination, stating that he was the one that gave the order. Fitzgerald fought his termination, with the Civil Service Commission finding his firing to be unjust. Due to this, Fitzgerald sued Nixon civilly for the damages that occurred as a result of his firing.
Timeline of the Case
The case began in federal district courts, with the court siding with Fitzgerald. They felt that his wrongful termination had been at the fault of President Nixon, and that Nixon had to pay the damages. Nixon appealed, leading to the case landing in the appeals court. Similarly to the district court, the appeals court sided with Fitzgerald. In response, Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case, with oral arguments happening on November 30th, 1981. In arguments, Fitzgerald’s lawyers argued that his wrongful termination had been at the direct fault of President Nixon. They asserted that Nixon had to pay the damages, as he was at fault. In contrast, Nixon’s lawyers argued that the president has absolute immunity from any civil suit that has to do with their official capacity. The President’s lawyers held that if Nixon did not have this specific type of immunity, his actions as president would be severely limited due to fear of civil suits.
Decision and Reasoning
On June 24th, 1982, The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled in favor of Nixon. They held that presidents do have absolute civil immunity when operating in their official capacity. They maintained that this immunity was a part of the president’s unique role, and that their decision was rooted in the history of the separation of powers. The four dissenters felt that civil immunity put the president above the law, as now there was an aspect of law that could not be brought against them.
Aftermath of the Decision
In 1997, a former Arkansas state employee named Paula Corbin Jones civilly sued President Bill Clinton. She did so as she claimed that President Clinton had made many inappropriate sexual advances on her, to which she rejected, leading to her being punished in her job. She sued him hoping to receive compensation, with the case reaching the Supreme Court. In Clinton v. Jones (1997), Clinton’s lawyers argued that he could not be sued civilly due to his immunity decided on in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. In an unanimous decision, all nine Justices ruled that the civil immunity given to the president does not apply to actions before the person assumed the presidency.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald was later used as precedent in Trump v. United States (2024). In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court had to decide if presidents have criminal immunity from official acts. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court decided that presidents do have immunity from criminal prosecution involving official acts. They stated that the precedent of official acts being immune from prosecution comes from Nixon v. Fitzgerald, as the Court decided the immunity was needed for the president to do his duties without fear of persecution. Even though Nixon v. Fitzgerald was only focused on civil immunity, the Court interpreted it to apply to criminal immunity as well.
Bibliography
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
- Oyez, “Nixon v. Fitzgerald”
- Legal Information Institute, “Nixon v. Fitzgerald”
- Casebriefs, “Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald”
- Quimbee, “Richard Nixon v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald”
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
- Oyez, “Clinton v. Jones”
- Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)
- Oyez, “Trump v. United States”