In the 1990 case of Frederick A. Siegert v. H. Melvin Gilley, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gilley, who was a former employer of Siegert at Saint Elizabeths Hospital in Washington D.C., and had provided negative references about him to his prospective employers which resulted in job loss for Siegert. The court held that federal officials are immune from suits for damages relating to their performance evaluations if those evaluations were part of their official duties and not made with malice or improper motive. This immunity extends even when such statements have been alleged as defamatory by an aggrieved party like Siegert, who claimed that he lost potential employment due to these negative references given by Gilley during his job search after leaving St.Elizabeths hospital.

In the dissenting opinion for Frederick A. Siegert v. H. Melvin Gilley, Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to expand qualified immunity was misguided and inconsistent with precedent. They contended that public officials should only be granted immunity if they acted in good faith and believed their actions were lawful at the time of occurrence - a standard not met by Siegert who knowingly made false statements about Gilley which led to his termination from employment at a hospital in Germany. The dissenters also criticized the majority for deciding on an issue (qualified immunity) that had not been raised or briefed before them; this action violated traditional judicial restraint principles according to them.