Harlow v. Fitzgerald

Summary

The Court held that senior Presidential aides are not categorically entitled to absolute immunity from damages suits merely because of their positions. Instead, absolute immunity depends on the sensitive function performed and whether the challenged conduct occurred within that protected function, while qualified immunity turns principally on whether the conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable official would have known. The Court vacated the appellate judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the summary-judgment issue under these standards.