Absolute immunity

In the United States, absolute civil immunity applies to the following people and circumstances:

• lawmakers engaged in the legislative process;Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976).
• judges acting in their judicial capacity;
• government prosecutors while acting in their prosecutorial capacity;Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993).
• executive officers while performing adjudicative functions;See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-17 (1978).
• the President of the United States;Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
• Presidential aides who first show that the functions of their office are so sensitive as to require absolute immunity, and who then show that they were performing those functions when performing the act at issue;Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 802 (1982).
• witnesses while testifying in court (although they are still subject to perjury);Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012).
• lawyers in certain circumstances related to fraud{{Cite web|url=https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2013/05/21/292839.htm|title=Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can't Be Sued for Fraud|date=2013-05-21|website=Insurance Journal|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-22}}

{{main|Presidential immunity in the United States}}

Although the U.S. president is frequently sued in his governmental capacity, he normally is not sued in his personal capacity as being personally liable.{{Cite web|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-presidents-absolute-immunity-be-trumped|title=Can a President's Absolute Immunity be Trumped?|date=2017-05-09|website=Lawfare|language=en|access-date=2020-02-22}} In 1982, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while in office. The Court suggested that this immunity was broad (though not limitless), applying to acts within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official duties. Fifteen years after Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in Clinton v. Jones that the president does not possess absolute immunity from civil litigation surrounding acts he carried out that were not part of his official duties (which is often incorrectly presented as referring only to acts carried out before becoming president).[https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-presidents-absolute-immunity-be-trumped Can a President’s Absolute Immunity be Trumped?] "Notably, the more general holding in Clinton v. Jones, [...] contrary to common belief, is not quite predicated on the conduct’s having taken place before President Clinton took office. Rather, the court distinguishes Fitzgerald on grounds that the conduct alleged in Jones's suit was not plausibly encompassed within the President's official duties. That it preceded his presidency was evidence of that reality, but it was the reality it supported that controlled the outcome. As Justice Stevens wrote, in distinguishing Fitzgerald, 'we have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.{{' "}}520 U.S. 681 (1997). The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance held that the president is subject to subpoenas in criminal prosecutions for personal conduct with the same legal threshold as anyone else.

The extent to which presidential immunity applies to criminal offenses was disputed. There are non-contemporaneous reports that Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding by horse while in office, although the historicity of this narrative is unclear.{{cite web|title=Was General Grant Arrested for Speeding in Washington, D.C.? |url=https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/was-general-grant-arrested-for-speeding-in-washington-d-c.htm |access-date=2023-05-03 |others=Research by Ryan Semmes |publisher=Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site (National Park Service) |language=en}} There have been criminal investigations of three sitting presidents (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump), but no prosecutions. Memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel issued in 1973 and 2000 internally prohibit the Department of Justice from prosecuting a president, which some legal scholars have criticized but others have endorsed.{{cite journal |last1=Prakash |first1=Saikrishna Bangalore |title=Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents. |journal=Texas Law Review |date=November 2021 |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=55–113 |url=https://texaslawreview.org/prosecuting-and-punishing-our-presidents/ |access-date=31 March 2023 |ssrn=4039230 |id={{EBSCOhost|154035452|dbcode=a9h}}}}

In defense against federal criminal prosecution for his alleged 2020 election subversion, in January 2024 Donald Trump argued to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that a president enjoys absolute immunity for criminal acts conducted while in office. The next month, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled against Trump. It was the first time an appeals court had addressed such a presidential immunity matter, since no other sitting or former president had ever been criminally indicted.{{cite news |title=Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Claim of Absolute Immunity |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-appeals-court.html |work=The New York Times |date=February 6, 2024|author1=Alan Feuer|author2=Charlie Savage}}

In Trump v. United States, on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents were entitled to absolute immunity from exercising core powers enumerated by the constitution, presumption of immunity for "outer perimeter" actions, and no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was sent back to lower courts to determine which actions in the criminal complaint should be classified as official vs. unofficial.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/02/presidential-immunity-trump-lawsuits|title=What does the immunity ruling mean for Trump's criminal cases?|work= The Guardian}} The ruling was the first time the courts granted a president criminal immunity.

{{redirect-distinguish|Prosecutorial immunity|Immunity from prosecution}}

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their official actions during trial.{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2009/11/how-broad-is-prosecutorial-immunity/|title=How Broad Is Prosecutorial Immunity?|date=2009-11-03|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en|access-date=2020-03-16}} For instance, a prosecutor cannot be sued for purposely withholding exculpatory evidence, even if that act results in a wrongful conviction.{{Cite news|last=Balko|first=Radley|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/30/7th-circuit-pokes-a-hole-in-prosecutorial-immunity/|title=7th Circuit pokes a hole in prosecutorial immunity|date=January 30, 2014|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=March 15, 2020}} Absolute prosecutorial immunity also exists for acts closely related to the criminal process' judicial phase.

However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions. Further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a 2019 decision that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial discretion when performing purely administrative functions concerning a criminal prosecution.{{Cite web|url=https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2019/sep/17/first-circuit-prosecutor-not-entitled-absolute-immunity-when-performing-purely-administrative-duty/|title=First Circuit: Prosecutor Not Entitled to Absolute Immunity When Performing Purely Administrative Duty {{!}} Criminal Legal News|website=www.criminallegalnews.org|access-date=2020-03-16}} Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor is not immune from liability for fabricating evidence during pre-trial investigations and then introducing that evidence at trial.

{{main|Judicial immunity}}

Absolute judicial immunity applies when judges act in their judicial capacity, but not when they take executive actions like leading a search or personally jailing people.{{Cite web |title=Matthew Gibson v. Louise Goldston, No. 22-1757 (4th Cir. 2023) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22-1757/22-1757-2023-10-30.html |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=D. Bart Rockett v. The Honorable Eric Eighmy, No. 21-3903 (8th Cir. 2023) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/21-3903/21-3903-2023-06-22.html |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=Justia Law |language=en}} A judge enjoys this immunity when they exceed their jurisdiction, but not when they act without any jurisdiction.Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356-57. Judicial immunity also extends to non-judges when they act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, such as a court-appointed referee in an equitable distribution case.Sharp v. Gulley, 120 NC App 878 (1995). Determining whether someone is acting in a judicial capacity and thus deserves absolute immunity requires using a functional test; that is, one must determine whether the person is acting functionally similarly to a judge.Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978).

In 2019, the Trump administration resisted efforts by House Democrats to compel Trump aides to testify, asserting that close aides to the president enjoy absolute immunity from providing testimony to Congress.{{Cite news|last=Tau|first=Byron|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rejects-white-house-claims-of-immunity-for-close-aides-11574722684|title=Judge Rejects White House Claims of Immunity for Close Aides|date=2019-11-26|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2020-02-22|language=en-US|issn=0099-9660}} But a federal judge ruled against the administration, stating that close presidential advisors—even those working in national security—do not possess absolute immunity from testifying in congressional inquiries,{{Cite news|last=Savage|first=Charlie|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling.html|title=Donald McGahn Must Testify to Congress, Judge Rules; Administration Will Appeal|date=2019-11-25|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-02-22|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}} though these officials may invoke executive privilege whenever it is appropriate.{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling|title="Presidents Are Not Kings": Federal Judge Destroys Trump's "Absolute Immunity" Defense Against Impeachment|last=Durkee|first=Alison|magazine=Vanity Fair|language=en|access-date=2020-02-22}} The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing the decision.{{Cite news|last=Savage|first=Charlie|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling.html|title=Donald McGahn Must Testify to Congress, Judge Rules; Administration Will Appeal|date=2019-11-25|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-02-22|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}} Previously, both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations had asserted absolute immunity in contexts like this, but the doctrine has been mostly untested in the judiciary.

Some scholars urge courts to reconsider the scope of certain forms of absolute immunity, particularly prosecutorial immunity.Taddei, John P. Beyond Absolute Immunity: Alternative Protections for Prosecutors Against Ultimately. 106 Northwestern University Law Review 1883, 1883. They insist that absolute prosecutorial immunity is not supported by either public policy or history, and that applying this doctrine in everyday situations is needlessly unworkable.Johns, Margaret Z., Reconsidering Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity, 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review 53, 56. Meanwhile, others push back, arguing that prosecutorial immunity is necessary to protect public servants from frivolous lawsuits.

• Sovereign immunity
• Qualified immunity

{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Absolute Immunity}}

Category:American legal terminology

Category:Legal immunity