Also known as: official acts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An act performed by the President in an official capacity. Such acts receive immunity from civil suit while unofficial acts receive no such protection.
An act performed by the President in an official capacity. Such acts receive immunity from civil suit while unofficial acts receive no such protection.
A formal exercise of governmental power that is specific and focused on a pending question or matter that may be brought before a public official.
A formal exercise of governmental power that is specific and focused on a pending question or matter that may be brought before a public official.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Odessa Okada worked at a private farm owned by the future President ten years before the election. After the President took office she sued for unpaid wages arising from that earlier employment. The court allowed the suit to proceed because the alleged conduct occurred before the President assumed office and was not an official act.
2 common questions
Yes. Presidential immunity protects only acts performed in an official capacity. Unofficial conduct that occurred before taking office receives no immunity even while the President remains in office.
Supporting sources
No. A valid arrest warrant requires the signature of a judicial officer. A clerk's forged signature is not legally equivalent and does not satisfy the requirement that a judge perform the official act of issuing the warrant.
Supporting sources
Omar Olson, a state governor, accepted loans from a supplement company executive in exchange for setting up meetings with university officials. The court held that merely arranging meetings did not qualify as an official act under the bribery statute because it was not a formal exercise of governmental power on a specific pending matter.
In November 2009 Robert McDonnell was elected the 71st Governor of Virginia. His campaign focused on promoting business in the state. He spoke about economic development on a daily basis while attending numerous events and referring constituents to meetings with staff and other officials. Shortly after the election Williams had dinner with Governor and Mrs. McDonnell. Williams was the CEO of Star Scientific, a Virginia-based company that developed and marketed Anatabloc, a nutritional supplement made from anatabine. Star Scientific hoped Virginia's public universities would undertake research studies on anatabine pursuant to a grant from Virginia's Tobacco Commission. Over the next two years Williams provided the McDonnells with more than $175,000 in gifts and loans. McDonnell arranged meetings for Williams with state health officials including Dr. Hazel. He hosted a lunch event for Star Scientific at the Governor's Mansion in August 2011. He also directed staff to forward materials and emails regarding Anatabloc research issues at state universities. Additional interactions included a March 2012 meeting with administration officials where McDonnell discussed Anatabloc. In January 2014 the Federal Government indicted McDonnell and his wife Maureen on one count of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, three counts of honest services fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion, six counts of Hobbs Act extortion, and two counts of making a false statement. The indictment alleged that McDonnell accepted the benefits in exchange for performing official actions on an as-needed basis to promote Star Scientific's products. Mrs. McDonnell faced similar charges plus one count of obstructing official proceedings. The case proceeded to a five-week jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. At trial Williams testified under an immunity agreement that he provided the benefits to obtain help with testing Anatabloc. McDonnell acknowledged requesting loans and accepting gifts but testified that arranging meetings was routine and that he expected staff only to meet with Williams. Several state officials testified they discussed Anatabloc but took no further action. The district court instructed the jury that official acts include acts a public official customarily performs, including those in furtherance of longer-term goals. McDonnell requested but was denied an instruction that merely arranging meetings or hosting events does not alone constitute an official act. The jury convicted Governor McDonnell on the honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion charges, but acquitted him on the false statement charges. The District Court sentenced him to two years in prison. Following the verdict McDonnell moved to vacate the convictions, arguing the jury instructions were erroneous. He also moved for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence and unconstitutional vagueness. The district court denied both motions. McDonnell appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the meaning of official act under the federal bribery statute.
View caseOrlando Okafor, an agency administrator, issued an emergency price regulation during wartime. A regulated party later challenged the regulation in court. The court treated the issuance as an official act that the administrator had already performed and therefore could reconsider during protest proceedings.
Congress enacted the Emergency Price Control Act on January 30, 1942, as a temporary wartime measure. Congress amended it by the Stabilization Act of October 2, 1942. The Act authorized the Price Administrator, after consultation with industry representatives, to issue regulations fixing maximum prices that in his judgment would be generally fair and equitable and would effectuate the Act's purposes of stabilizing prices and preventing inflation. On April 28, 1942, the Administrator issued the General Maximum Price Regulation effective May 11, 1942, setting maximum prices at the highest price charged by the seller during March 1942. On December 10, 1942, the Administrator issued Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 169, establishing specific maximum prices for wholesale cuts of beef and veal. Petitioners Yakus and others operated wholesale meat businesses in Massachusetts. Between December 1942 and early 1943 they sold wholesale cuts of beef at prices exceeding the maximums prescribed by Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 169. Federal grand juries in the District of Massachusetts returned indictments charging them with willful violations of sections 4(a) and 205(b) of the Act. When the indictments were returned, the sixty-day period for filing administrative protests against the regulation had already expired. At trial the petitioners offered evidence on the validity of the regulation. They contended that the prices it fixed were not generally fair and equitable and that enforcement would compel them to sell at a loss. The district court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. It refused to submit the validity issue to the jury and convicted the petitioners on verdicts of guilty. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions. Petitioners in related cases were likewise convicted in the same district court for selling processed textile futures above maximum prices established by Maximum Price Regulation No. 188 and Supplementary Regulation No. 271. Those convictions were also affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in all cases because of the importance of the issues to administration of the Act.
1 common questions
An official act is a formal exercise of governmental power that is specific and focused on a pending question or matter that may be brought before a public official. Setting up a meeting or granting access does not qualify.
Supporting sources
…the necessities of the case, does not come with a virgin mind to the consideration of a protest. He has previously performed the official act of issuing the regulation, the terms of which of course reflect his conclusions on many economic, administrative and legal questions. In this sense, he necessarily approaches consideration…