The U.S. Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1981 revolved around the issue of presidential immunity from civil lawsuits related to official actions while in office. The plaintiff, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a former government contractor and whistleblower who had testified before Congress about cost overruns on a military aircraft project, alleged that he was fired as retribution by President Richard M. Nixon's administration for his testimony and sued for damages based on this claim of wrongful termination. In response, Nixon claimed executive privilege or absolute immunity from such suits during his time in office as president - an argument which reached the Supreme Court after lower courts gave conflicting rulings. Ultimately, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Nixon stating that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for civil damages based on their official acts while they are in office; however it also clarified that this protection does not extend to acts outside their official duties nor does it protect them against impeachment or criminal charges.

In the dissenting opinion for Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to grant absolute immunity to a President for actions taken while in office was an overreach of judicial power and contrary to the principles of accountability underpinning American democracy. He contended that no one should be above the law, including Presidents, who should be held accountable for their unlawful conduct just like any other citizen. Moreover, he expressed concern about potential abuses of presidential power if such absolute immunity were granted. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that civil lawsuits would distract a president from his duties or pose risks to national security information being revealed during litigation processes; instead arguing these concerns could be addressed through existing legal mechanisms without granting total immunity.