Sorry! There's no plausible argument that Article II of the Constitution protects subordinates the same way it protects the President. And the Supreme Court specifically held to the contrary in the civil damages context in Harlow v. Fitzgerald:
Sorry! There's no plausible argument that Article II of the Constitution protects subordinates the same way it protects the President. And the Supreme Court specifically held to the contrary in the civil damages context in Harlow v. Fitzgerald:
Sorry! There's no plausible argument that Article II of the Constitution protects subordinates the same way it protects the President. And the Supreme Court specifically held to the contrary in the civil damages context in Harlow v. Fitzgerald:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457800/usrep457800.pdf