Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Citation and Court
457 U.S. 800 (1982) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a Defense Department analyst, was dismissed after testifying before Congress about cost overruns. He sued senior White House aides Harlow and Butterfield under a Bivens theory, alleging they conspired to unlawfully terminate him. The aides asserted qualified immunity from suit.
Issue
What standard of qualified immunity applies to federal executive officials sued for constitutional violations, and whether the standard should include a subjective component.
Holding
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The subjective good-faith component of the prior Wood v. Strickland / Butz v. Economou test is eliminated.
Rule / Doctrine
Qualified immunity: an official is immune from damages liability unless the constitutional right allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct, assessed by an objective standard. The court asks whether a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful — subjective intent is irrelevant.
Significance
Harlow is the foundational qualified immunity case for federal officials and was quickly extended to § 1983 state-officer suits in Anderson v. Creighton (1987). By replacing the subjective test with an objective one, it dramatically expanded the practical scope of immunity and created the “clearly established law” inquiry that dominates constitutional tort litigation today.