Druckenmiller v. United States

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration invites us to determine whether the recent Supreme Court decision in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), should be given retroactive effect. 1 We conclude that it should and deny the motion.

In determining whether Harlow is entitled to retroactive effect, we are guided by the seminal case of Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), which held that holdings in civil cases should be limited to prospective application where they…