Your Cart

Nixon v Fitzgerald [1982]

Nixon v Fitzgerald 457 US 731 [1982] is a cornerstone in the legal framework surrounding presidential immunity within the United States. This case unequivocally established the precedent that the President of the United States is granted absolute immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the ambit of their official duties. The background, opinion of the Court, and its implications provide a fascinating insight into the judicial reasoning behind presidential protections and the balance of power in the US governmental system.

Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald's lawsuit against various government officials, including former President Richard Nixon, over his alleged wrongful termination for congressional testimony in 1968, set the stage for this landmark decision. Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal was a result of his whistleblowing activities, which caught the attention of the highest levels of government. Nixon's defence hinged on the argument that a sitting president could not be sued for official actions undertaken during their term. Despite lower courts rejecting Nixon's claim to immunity, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, presenting an opportunity to address the scope of presidential immunity directly.

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Nixon, articulating a doctrine of absolute immunity for the President from civil damages related to their official acts. This decision underscored the unique role of the presidency in the American constitutional structure, recognising the necessity for the President to execute their duties without the distraction of litigation. Importantly, the Court differentiated between immunity from civil suits and immunity from criminal prosecution, affirming that the President could still face criminal charges for acts committed either in an official capacity or personally.

The rationale behind granting absolute immunity was not to empower the President with unchecked authority but to acknowledge the existing checks and balances—including scrutiny from the press, oversight by Congress, and the potential for impeachment—that inherently limit presidential power. The Court also pointed to the President's accountability to the electorate and historical legacy as natural deterrents to misconduct.

The decision has had profound implications for the understanding of presidential immunity. It firmly established the legal protection for Presidents against civil liabilities arising from their official duties, allowing them to perform their roles without the encumbrance of ongoing litigation. However, this immunity was not seen as all-encompassing, as demonstrated by the subsequent Clinton v Jones case, which clarified that the President does not enjoy immunity from civil suits for actions outside the scope of presidential duties or before taking office.

These decisions together paint a complex portrait of presidential immunity, one that balances the need for a functioning executive branch with the principles of accountability and justice. They reflect a judicial effort to navigate the intricacies of power dynamics within the US government, ensuring that while the President is shielded from certain legal battles, avenues for accountability remain open. This nuanced approach ensures that the executive branch can operate effectively while still upholding the foundational American principles of checks and balances and the rule of law.

Trusted by thousands of law students worldwide

Where are our students from?

Yale University

Council of Europe

Baker Mckenzie 

University of Chicago

Columbia University

New York University

University of Michigan 


University College London (UCL)

London School of Economics (LSE)

King’s College London (KCL)

University of London

University of Manchester

University of Zurich

University of York

Brandeis University

University of Exeter

University of Sheffield

Boston University

University of Washington

University of Leeds

University of Law

Royal Holloway, University of London 

Birkbeck, University of London

SOAS, University of London

University of Kent

University of Hull

Queen’s University Belfast

Toronto Metropolitan University

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Your perfect companion for open-book and closed-book exams

Diagrams and Charts

Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

Clear and Succinct Definitions

Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

Statutory Provisions

Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

Case Summaries

We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

Rules and Exceptions

Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.


Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

Case Law

Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

Law Essay Guide

You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

Problem Question Guide

We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

Structured Explanations

Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

Legal Research

You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.


All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.