Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 80

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

even that test cuts against it.  The majority concludes that
official-acts  immunity  “is  required  to  safeguard  the  inde-
pendence  and  effective  functioning  of  the  Executive 
Branch,” ante, at 14, by rejecting that Branch’s own protes-
tations that such immunity is not at all required and would
in fact be harmful, see Brief for United States 18–24, 29– 
30.  In doing so, it decontextualizes Fitzgerald’s language,
ignores important qualifications, and reaches a result that
the Fitzgerald Court never would have countenanced. 

In  Fitzgerald,  plaintiff  A.  Ernest  Fitzgerald  sued  then-
former  President  Nixon  for  money  damages.    He  claimed 
that, while in office, Nixon had been involved in unlawfully 
firing him from his government job.  See 457 U. S., at 733– 
741.  The question for the Court was whether a former Pres-
ident had immunity from such a civil suit.  The Court ex-
plained  that  it  was  “settled  law  that  the  separation-of- 
powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction 
over the President of the United States.”  Id., at 753–754. 
To  determine  whether  a  particular  type  of  suit  against  a 
President  (or  former  President)  could  be  heard,  a  court 
“must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be
served  against  the  dangers  of  intrusion  on  the  authority
and functions of the Executive Branch.”  Id., at 754.  The 
Court  explained  that,  “[w]hen  judicial  action  is  needed  to 
serve broad public interests—as when the Court acts, not
in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain
their proper balance, or to vindicate the public interest in 
an  ongoing  criminal  prosecution—the  exercise  of  jurisdic-
tion has been held warranted.”  Ibid. (citations omitted).

On the facts before it, the Court concluded that a “merely
private suit for damages based on a President’s official acts” 
did  not  serve  those  interests.    Ibid.    The  Court  reasoned 
that the “visibility of [the President’s] office and the effect 
of his actions on countless people” made him an easy target 
for civil suits that “frequently could distract [him] from his