Mitchell v. Forsyth

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from damages liability for allegedly unconstitutional national-security wiretapping. It further held that a district court's denial of qualified immunity, insofar as it turns on an issue of law, is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. Applying the qualified-immunity standard, the Court concluded that the warrantless domestic-security wiretap authorized in 1970 did not violate clearly established law at that time.

Holdings

1. The Attorney General is not entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for allegedly unconstitutional conduct performed in national-security functions merely because of his office or the sensitivity of those functions.
2. A district court's denial of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.
3. Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because, when he authorized the wiretap in November 1970, it was not clearly established that warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic national-security threats violated the Fourth Amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Attorney General was absolutely immune from damages liability for allegedly unconstitutional conduct undertaken in performing national-security functions.
2. Whether a district court's denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine when the appeal presents a legal question.
3. Whether Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of warrantless domestic-national-security wiretaps was not clearly established when he authorized the wiretap in 1970.

Disposition

reversed