Update on the Wilson civil suit: The Veep claims absolute immunity

Judicial Watch is particularly concerned about the Vice President’s assertion of absolute
immunity. Second, the absolute immunity advocated by the Vice President is based largely on an overly broad interpretation of Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), a case in
which Judicial Watch was a party.

Judicial Restraint Does Not Support the Vice President’s Request For
Absolute Immunity.

Absolute immunity, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fitzgerald, and applied to the
President, is “incident of the President’s unique office,” and “rooted in the constitutional
tradition of the separation of powers.” Fitzgerald, 457 at 749. It was the President’s
constitutional grant of authority that provided the Court with the foundation for absolute
immunity.

Here is the latest of the Wilsons' file.


Here is the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case used by Cheney.


And here is an excerpt of Nixon v Fitzgerald:


During the waning months of the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, respondent, a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force, testified before a congressional Subcommittee about cost-overruns and unexpected technical difficulties concerning the development of a particular airplane. In January 1970, during the Presidency of petitioner Richard M. Nixon, respondent was dismissed from his job during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force, in which his job was eliminated. Respondent complained to the Civil Service Commission, alleging that his separation represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony.

In the civil lawsuit case, Cheney is being sued in his individual capacity, not in his official
capacity.