Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Citation and Court
457 U.S. 731 (1982) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
A. Ernest Fitzgerald was a management analyst for the Air Force who was dismissed after testifying before Congress about cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane. Fitzgerald sued former President Nixon for damages, alleging that Nixon had orchestrated his dismissal in retaliation for his congressional testimony. Nixon asserted absolute presidential immunity.
Issue
Whether a former President of the United States has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for his official acts within the outer perimeter of his authority.
Holding
Yes. The President has absolute immunity from damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties, based on the unique nature of the presidential office and the constitutional separation of powers.
Rule / Doctrine
Absolute presidential immunity: unlike executive officials generally, who have only qualified immunity, the President enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages suits for official acts. This immunity is not absolute as to unofficial conduct, however. The outer perimeter test is permissive — it covers all acts that are not clearly unrelated to presidential responsibilities.
Significance
Nixon v. Fitzgerald is one of the most significant presidential immunity cases, establishing that no damages action can lie against a sitting or former President for conduct within the scope of office. It stands in contrast to Clinton v. Jones (1997), which held that the immunity does not extend to unofficial conduct (acts taken before taking office). Together they define the boundaries of presidential civil immunity.