Harlow v. Fitzgerald

1982

Venue: SCOTUS
Facts: Fitzgerald is discharged from USAF, allegedly as a result of a conspiracy against him by Nixon and the upper aids of the administration.
Posture: Lots of discovery, and then the airs move for summary judgement saying they're immune from suit for actions committed in their capacity as presidential aids. District court denies the motion. Ct. App. affirms the denial.
Issue: Do these folks have abolute immunity from suit?
Holding: No, but they do have qualified immunity.
Rule: Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Reasoning: There are social costs to exposing people of this sort to liability: diversion of official energy from pressing issues, deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office, and dampening of ardor in the discharge of duties.

Also, we want this to be decideable on summary judgment. We used to have a two-prong test (this is Wood v. Strickland):

  1. Subjective: the state actor sincerly believes that right is being done (good faith)
  2. Objective: the state actor knew or reasonably should have known that the action would violate the rights of the plaintiff
The problem with subjective is that we don't decide questions of fact on summary judgment, and there's a good reason to keep insubstantial claims from proceeding to trial.

We should not proceed to discovery unless the threshold objective immunity is resolved.

Dicta: Brennan (concurring): sometimes we might need little discovery in order to determine what an official knew at the time when the action was taken.