Constitutional Law / Civil Rights (Qualified Immunity)
457 U.S. 800 (1982) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Harlow v. Fitzgerald: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Senior presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity, which is assessed under an objective standard focusing on clearly established rights.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court addressed the standard for qualified immunity for senior presidential aides in civil rights actions. The Court held that these officials are not entitled to absolute immunity – a significant narrowing of previous rulings. Instead, the Court established that the qualified immunity standard should be objective, focusing on whether the right violated was clearly established at the time rather than on the subjective intent or motivations of the officials. This refined approach emphasizes the responsibility of public officials to be aware of constitutional rights and limits the ability of defendants to use subjective good faith as a defense against liability.
Professors may emphasize the implications of this ruling for civil rights litigation, particularly how it balances the need for accountability of public officials with the need to allow officials to exercise their duties without fear of constant litigation. The reformulation of qualified immunity could have broad effects on how civil rights cases are litigated, strengthening the notion that officials must be aware of their legal obligations and the rights of individuals under the law.
Harlow Holds High (Objective Shield).
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Wood v. Strickland | In Wood, the court accepted a subjective standard for school officials, while Harlow shifted the focus to an objective standard for senior aides. |
| Imbler v. Pachtman | Imbler granted absolute immunity to prosecutors for their roles in adjudicative functions, contrasting with the qualified immunity standard established in Harlow. |
| Pierson v. Ray | Pierson involved police officers and addressed qualified immunity under a subjective standard, whereas Harlow established a revised objective standard. |
The objective standard encourages public officials to be knowledgeable about constitutional rights, thereby enhancing the protection of citizens' civil rights.
The removal of the subjective standard may deter capable individuals from public service due to fear of litigation, potentially undermining effective governance.
This case often appears on exams as a discussion on the principles of qualified immunity and the balance between official accountability and functional government operations. Students may be asked to analyze the case's impact and apply its principles to hypothetical scenarios.