Summary
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), created the modern objective qualified immunity test: federal officials performing discretionary duties are protected from damages unless they violate clearly established rights a reasonable official would have known.
Legal Issue
When presidential aides and other federal officials are sued for constitutional violations, are they protected by absolute immunity, or only qualified immunity, and what legal standard applies?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that presidential aides generally receive qualified immunity, not absolute immunity. Federal officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known.
Rule of Law
Government officials can be sued for constitutional violations, but they are usually protected unless the law was clearly established at the time and a reasonable official would have understood the conduct was unlawful.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
Harlow is a foundation of modern qualified immunity doctrine. Courts still use its clearly-established-law framework when deciding whether officers and other officials must face damages claims after alleged constitutional violations.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.