c1ass DATE: Chapter 13: Close Up on the Supreme Court Nixonv. Fitzgerald, 1982 Case Summary More on the Case A. Emnest Fitzgerald claimed ‘The Supreme Court revisited that he lost his employment May the presidential immunity “in with the Air Force because | Pyosidont be sued? | Clinton. Jones, 1997. Paula he gave testimony before Congress that was critical of his employer. He tried ta Jones sued Bill Clinton while he was President of thie United States, accusing him add President Nixon as: defendant in his suit, but Nixon argued that a President cannot: be sued for actions taken while in office. The trial and appellate court rejected the President's claim of immunity, and the case went to the Supreme Court: The Court’s Decision, ! In 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts, Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the majority. He noted that the Court had never before ruled on the scope of presidential immunity. Many public officials have a limited, o£ “qualified,” immunity that applies so long'as they have acted in “good faith.” Some other officials, such as judges and prosecutors, have been given an unlimited, or “absolute,” immunity because of the special nature of their duties. Giving the Pres- ident only qualified immunity, Justice Powell argued, would make his actions subject to review by the judicial branch and might compro- mise the separation of powers. Lawsuits could distract the President from his official duties. The scope of the President's authority and responsibility is so broad that itis not realistic to restrict his immunity. Powell wrote that derer- mining “good faith” would mean that the Presi- dent’s motivations would have to be examined in each case, which would be highly intrusive. Justice Byron White’s dissent argued that the ‘majority’s rule was too broad. Under it, a Presi- dent could “deliberately cause serious injury to any number of citizens even thouigh he knows his conduct violates a statute or tramples on the constitutional rights of those who are injured.” of sexual misconduct when he was Governor of Arkansas. Clinton argued that the'case shouldbe dismissed, because the President has absolute immunity from suit. The Supreme Court noted that Nixon, y, Fitzgerald gave the President “absolute intiu- nity from damages liability predicated on his official acts,” but did not extend this imrainity to actions that,Were clearly outside the scope of his presidential duties. ‘The major rationale of Fitzgerald was to-remove the possibility that the threat of litigation would make the President *uinduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” Jones's allegations involved acts that allegedly occurred before Clifton became Presi- dent, so Fitzgerald’s reasoning did not:apiply and Jones should be allowed to bring her-case, Finally, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court judge would have the discre~ tion to schedule the various aspects of the case to minimize disruption of the President’s offi- ial duties. The Court ruled that itis not appro: priate, however, to automatically require the plaintiff to wait until the end of the President’s term in office. Questions for Discussion 1. Compare and contrast the'' two cases dealing with the issue of presidential immunity. Are the distinctions made by the ‘Court valid? 2. Justice White’s dissent argues that the majority's decision puts the President above the law. Do you agree with this argument? Explain, iw 7 Giose Up onthe Suprenie Court Extension Activity © Pisce Hol in