From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Butz v. Economou
United States Supreme Court
438 U.S. 478 (1978)
Facts
Arthur Economou (plaintiff) owned a company registered with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a commodity-futures commission merchant. The USDA initiated administrative proceedings to revoke or suspend Economou’s company’s license to trade commodity futures. In the proceedings against Economou, the USDA failed to fully comply with notice and warning requirements. Additionally, the USDA issued a press release about the matter that Economou found deceptive. Economou alleged that the proceeding was in retaliation for Economou’s strident criticism of the USDA and sued. Economou named the following individuals as defendants in his suit: the secretary of agriculture; the assistant secretary of agriculture; the USDA judicial officer and chief hearing examiner overseeing the case against him; officials in the Commodity Exchange Authority; the USDA attorney prosecuting the enforcement proceeding; and several of the auditors who had investigated or testified against Economou (the officials) (defendants). The trial court dismissed Economou’s suit on the basis that the officials had absolute immunity for all discretionary acts within their authorities. The United States Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the officials had only the qualified immunity similar to their counterparts in state government. The officials appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.