Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. The case held that the aides were generally entitled to qualified immunity; however, an aide could obtain absolute immunity but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted."

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. The case held that the aides were generally entitled to qualified immunity; however, an aide could obtain absolute immunity but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted." Despite its immediate application to White House aides in the case at bar, the case is regarded as most importance for its clarification of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are 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" (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 18884745 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 724029787 (xsd:integer)
dbp:arguedate
  • --11-30
dbp:argueyear
  • 1981 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800
dbp:citation
  • 172800.0
dbp:concurrence
  • Brennan
  • Rehnquist
  • Blackmun
  • Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun
dbp:decidedate
  • --06-24
dbp:decideyear
  • 1982 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Burger
dbp:findlaw
dbp:holding
  • Presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead deserved qualified immunity.
dbp:joinconcurrence
  • Marshall, Blackmun
dbp:joinmajority
  • Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
dbp:justia
dbp:litigants
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald
dbp:majority
  • Powell
dbp:prior
  • Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
dbp:scotus
  • 1981 (xsd:integer)
dbp:uspage
  • 800 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 457 (xsd:integer)
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. The case held that the aides were generally entitled to qualified immunity; however, an aide could obtain absolute immunity but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted." (en)
rdfs:label
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Bryce Harlow, et al. v.A. Ernest Fitzgerald (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of