A whistleblower is dismissed
Fitzgerald, an Air Force management analyst, is dismissed after describing shoddy purchasing practices; he sues former President Nixon and aides.S1 ↗
01 / Verdict · where it standsUS · 1982 · CASE
Outcome · official immunity standard set
SHIELDED UNLESS THE LAW WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED.
An Air Force analyst who said he was fired for exposing purchasing practices sued Nixon White House aides. The Court denied the aides absolute immunity but created the modern qualified-immunity test: officials are shielded unless their conduct violated clearly established rights a reasonable person would have known.
The aides got qualified, not absolute, immunity; the case was remanded.S1 ↗ϟ THE CASE IN 20 SECONDS
1WHOA. Ernest Fitzgerald, a dismissed Air Force management analyst, against White House aides Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield.
2WHATWhat immunity senior aides have from damages suits for violating rights.
3WHY IT MATTERSIt set the test that now ends most civil-rights suits against officials before trial: was the right clearly established?
HARLOW V. FITZGERALD
♟ CITIZEN LOADOUT · FITZGERALD
⬟
NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR AIDES
Senior aides get only qualified immunity.
♜ INSTITUTION LOADOUT · WHITE HOUSE AIDES
♜
THE SCORED ACTOR
White House aides and the power it used. The people on the citizen side are named as the case names them and are not scored.
WHAT THIS RULING DID NOT DO — The aides got qualified, not absolute, immunity; the case was remanded. The test protects only discretionary functions. Congress has never written this test into a statute; it is judge-made.
AFTERMATH LEDGER
| When | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2001 · 2009 | The test is refined. Saucier makes the two questions a mandatory sequence; Pearson makes the order optional.S2 ↗ |
WHY THIS SITS WHERE IT DOES
Gravity 92. Authority: A Supreme Court majority. Reach: Every official performing discretionary functions. Durability: Never abandoned; refined in Saucier and Pearson.
THE THROUGH-LINE
Officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from damages unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known; motive does not decide immunity.
92/100
CONSTITUTIONAL GRAVITY
All-time consequence · very high. Pointed against the citizen.
02 / Battle · powers and the battle logUS · 1982 · CASE
ScaleIVInstitutional
POWER LEVEL · CASE
80 /99
Set against the earlier scale (an editorial estimate). Band 76–84 · ±4 uncertainty.
institution-protective · settledBattle Power rates each side's position in this lawsuit from five inputs. It doesn't judge the people involved.
◈ CITIZEN SIDE · FITZGERALD
NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR AIDES
Kept a path to sue, under a harder test
Doctrine45
Absolute immunity was denied; but the Court replaced the subjective test with a harder objective one.S1 ↗
P = 46/99 battle power
♜ INSTITUTION SIDE · WHITE HOUSE AIDES
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW
Denied absolute immunity; won a new objective test
P = 74/99 battle power
SCORE DASHBOARD · THE NUMBERS AS BARS
SUPREME COURT (POWELL, J.)
An official is liable only if the right was already clearly established when they acted. An official's motive no longer decides immunity; only the state of the law does.S1 ↗
BURGER, C.J., DISSENTING
The Chief Justice would have given senior aides absolute immunity.S1 ↗
BATTLE LOG · THE DECISIVE MOVES
THE RULING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE RECORDED SEPARATELY. The lawsuit is scored on its own record. What happened afterward is listed separately, with sources.
03 / Evidence · the record behind every claimUS · 1982 · CASE
THE RECORD IS OPEN TO INSPECTION.
The opinions and records behind every line on this page.
S1 · Public.Resource.Org · U.S. Reports text
S1 ↗Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)
Decided 24 June 1982; Powell, J.; Burger, C.J., dissenting. Every holding quote is from this text.
S2 · Harvard Law Review
S2 ↗Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) · case note
The later refinements of the test.
No matching source. Try a holding name or case title.
HOLDINGS INDEX · WHAT THE COURT SAID
Each entry opens the court's own words, a plain reading and the limit of the rule.
COMMUNITY VAULT · PREPARE A FORMAL CHALLENGE
DISAGREE? MAKE THE OBJECTION PRECISE.
Your challenge saves on this device. Export it to send it in for review. Nothing is posted publicly.
04 / Lineage · where it came from, what it producedUS · 1982 · CASE
CASE · SELECT A PATH
WHERE THIS CASE SITS.
Officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from damages unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known; motive does not decide immunity.
1982 · HARLOW V. FITZGERALD
Officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from damages unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known; motive does not decide immunity.
…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.S1 · Public.Resource.Org · U.S. Reports text ↗
Saucier v. Katz
Made the two questions a mandatory sequence.
S2 · Harvard Law Review ↗Pearson v. Callahan
Made the sequence optional.
S2 · Harvard Law Review ↗LIMIT OF THE CONNECTION
Congress has never written this test into a statute; it is judge-made.
▥ GOVERNMENT-ADVANTAGING DOCTRINE
Clearly established lawEvery damages suit against an official
Malice is not enoughClaims that turn on intent
◈ CITIZEN DOCTRINE
No absolute immunity for aidesSuits against senior executive officials
WHAT THIS FEEDS ON THE MAP
Links to places on the map where a record shows this rule was applied. It links; it doesn't color the map.
05 / Battlefield · where it was foughtUS · 1982 · CASE
MAP RULE: A court case doesn't change any county's score on its own. Only sourced, reviewed local events move a county's Constitutional Compliance Score.
DECISION · INSTITUTIONAL LOCATION
DECIDED · 1982-06-24SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
White House aides and the power it used. The people on the citizen side are named as the case names them and are not scored.
HOW IT CONNECTS · DIAGRAM, NOT A MAP
ORIGINWASHINGTON, DC
⇢Damages suit against White House aides
REACHNATIONAL
national — every damages suit against an official
WHERE THIS EVENT BELONGS
The dispute began in Washington, DC.
The scored institution: White House aides.
WHAT CONNECTS TO YOUR U.S. MAP
Links to related places on the map.
On its own, it doesn't change any county's score.
MAP RECORD
| case_ref | case:harlow-v-fitzgerald |
|---|---|
| Event type | adjudicated_case |
| Location | Washington, DC |
| Scale | IV · Institutional · national |
| Direction | −1 · institution-protective |
| Gravity · Current force | 92 · 92 |
| Method | civic3-gravity-1.0 |
06 / Battle Loot · what each side won and lostUS · 1982 · CASE
⚔ BATTLE LOOT · WHAT CHANGED HANDS
Who won each encounter, from the sources on this page.
| Encounter | What was at stake | Taken by | What changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1982-06-24 · Supreme Court of the United States · 457 U.S. 800 (1982) | What immunity do senior executive aides have from damages suits? | INSTITUTION | official immunity standard set. S1 ↗ |
Institution 1 · a count of results, not a score
07 / Method & History · every number, every changeUS · 1982 · CASE
EVERY NUMBER IS OPEN.
Gravity, current force and effect use the Civic³ method on the Equation page. Every input below shows its reason and source. Challenge any of them.
92.3
GRAVITY · RAW WEIGHTED TOTAL
The six components below, weighted and summed.
G = .25 Authority + .20 Reach + .20 Durability + .15 Progeny + .10 Cross-domain + .10 Implementation| Input | Score | Weight | Contribution | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | 90 | 25% | 22.50 | A Supreme Court majority.S1 ↗ |
| Reach | 95 | 20% | 19.00 | Every official performing discretionary functions.S1 ↗ |
| Durability | 95 | 20% | 19.00 | Never abandoned; refined in Saucier and Pearson.S1 ↗ |
| Progeny | 95 | 15% | 14.25 | The basis of the qualified-immunity line.S1 ↗S2 ↗ |
| Cross-domain | 85 | 10% | 8.50 | Every kind of constitutional and statutory claim against officials.S1 ↗ |
| Implementation | 90 | 10% | 9.00 | Raised in civil-rights cases nationwide.S1 ↗ |
| Total | 100% | 92.25 | Displayed as 92 |
CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECT
−84.9
E = Direction × Gravity × Confidence × Current Force
Institution-protective and settled.
E = −1 × 92 × 1.0 × 92/100READ THE SIGN CAREFULLY — A negative effect means the ruling's weight today favors institutions over citizens. It says nothing about the people in the case.
CURRENT FORCE · WHAT IS STILL LIVE
Controlling, and refined since in the officials' favour.
clearly-established test · controllingApplied in every qualified-immunity case.S1 ↗
order of the two questions · limitedPearson (2009) lets courts skip the constitutional question.S2 ↗
THE FULL SCORE STACK
| Field | This file | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Power level /99 | 80 · band 76–84 | Set by comparison with the legacy scale (Pearson 70, Saucier 65): the root of the doctrine those cases refine. Editorial value; no formula produces it. |
| Legal / Promise / Divergence | 20 / 65 / 45 | Remedy delivered versus constitutional promise. |
| Battle Power (citizen / institution) | 46 / 74 | Litigation strength of each side, from the five inputs above. |
| Gravity | 92 | All-time constitutional consequence. |
| Current force | 92 | How much of that weight still governs today. |
| Constitutional Effect | −84.9 | Signed present consequence. |
Nine-axis profile · every input
Reach · 95Every damages suit against an official.S1 ↗
Severity · 80Ends most such suits before trial.S1 ↗
Precedent · 95Controlling for 44 years.S1 ↗
Resistance · 70Officials invoke it routinely.S1 ↗
Divergence (axis) · 50Radar input only. Not the Legal/Promise divergence above.
Asymmetry · 70Individuals against government defendants.S1 ↗
Evidence · 80The text of the opinion.S1 ↗
Contestation · 75Criticized across the spectrum; repeatedly reaffirmed.S1 ↗
Fog · 30A public opinion.S1 ↗
AXIS PROVENANCE — The nine axes were drafted for this edition. They only drive the radar.
REVISION HISTORY
A RECORD THAT STAYS OPEN TO CHALLENGE.
First edition, built from the opinion
The root of the police-accountability campaign; the site had a root-document page on qualified immunity but no case file.
OPEN RESEARCH ITEMS
Whether to tie the provision to Section 1983 and Bivens rather than the Fourteenth Amendment.
REVIEW THIS EDITION
Every number, quote and edge on this page can be challenged with a source.