[2] The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability.
[11] In 1982, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while in office.
[12][13] The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance held that the president is subject to subpoenas in criminal prosecutions for personal conduct with the same legal threshold as anyone else.
[18] However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions.
[19] Further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a 2019 decision that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial discretion when performing purely administrative functions concerning a criminal prosecution.
[26] But a federal judge ruled against the administration, stating that close presidential advisors—even those working in national security—do not possess absolute immunity from testifying in congressional inquiries,[27] though these officials may invoke executive privilege whenever it is appropriate.
[30] They insist that absolute prosecutorial immunity is not supported by either public policy or history, and that applying this doctrine in everyday situations is needlessly unworkable.