Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Clinton v.

Jones

Summary with Procedural History.


The Respondent, Paula Jones Corbin (Respondent), filed a
complaint t in federal district court in Arkansas containing four counts
against the Petitioner, President Clinton (Petitioner), alleging the
Petitioner made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was
the Governor of Arkansas. Clinton filed motions asking the district
court to dismiss the case on grounds of presidential immunity and
prohibit Jones from refiling the suit until after the end of his
presidency. The district court rejected the presidential immunity
argument but allowed that no trial would take place until Clinton was
no longer president. Both Clinton and Jones appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Doctrine.
Presidential immunity applies only to official acts. It is intended to ensure that the
functions of the office are performed without fear of personal liability. Thus, unofficial
acts are not protected.

The Facts.
Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Prior to
the presidency, Clinton held the office of governor of Arkansas.

In 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed suit in federal district court in Arkansas against
Clinton and Arkansas state trooper Danny Ferguson over an incident that was alleged
to have occurred at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991.

Respondent Jones, then an employee of the state, was working at the


registration desk of a conference in which Governor Clinton delivered a speech. Jones
alleges Trooper Ferguson told her that Governor Clinton wanted to see her in his room,
and Ferguson escorted her to the room. Once in the room, Clinton begins to make
unwanted sexual advances towards Jones.

Petitioner Clinton denies the allegations and claims that the lawsuit is politically
motivated.

Clinton filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential


immunity until he was no longer president, arguing that unless immunity is available,
the threat of judicial interference with the Executive branch would violate separation
of powers principles.

Petitioner's strongest argument is based on the text and structure of the


Constitution. He does not contend that the occupant of the Office of the President is
"above the law," in the sense that his conduct is entirely immune from judicial
scrutiny. The President merely argues for a postponement of the judicial proceedings
that will determine whether he violated any law.

The respondent countered that there was no precedent for the presidents
position, and that the case did not pose any threat to the presidential office.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the motion to
dismiss on immunity grounds, ruling that discovery could go forward, but staying the
trial until the end of the petitioners presidency. Both parties appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissing denial,
but reversed the order postponing the trial because it was the functional equivalent
of an unconstitutional grant of temporary immunity. The president appealed.

Issue + Ruling:
W/N the President can be involved in a lawsuit during his presidency for actions that
occurred before the tenure of his presidency that were not related to official duties of
the presidency? YES.

Presidential immunity applies only to official acts. It is intended to ensure that


the functions of the office are performed without fear of personal liability. Thus,
unofficial acts are not protected.
The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions
based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions
effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability,
see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, provides no support for an immunity for unofficial
conduct

The Federal Constitution did not require that federal courts (in all but the most
exceptional cases) defer civil damages litigation against the President until the
Presidents term ended when such litigation was based on actions allegedly taken
before the Presidents term. Because:
(a) a temporary immunity from suit for unofficial acts, grounded purely in the
identity of the Presidents office, was unsupported by precedent of the Supreme Court 1
(b) the doctrine of separation of powers did not require federal courts to stay all
private actions against the President until the President left office;
(c) Separation of powers is intended to keep each of the three equal branches of
government from gaining authority at the expense of another. The courts would not be
gaining any new power. They would be exercising the powers granted them in Article III
of the Constitution.
(d) Whatever the outcome of this case, there is no possibility that the decision
will curtail the scope of the official powers of the Executive Branch. The litigation of
questions that relate entirely to the unofficial conduct of the individual who happens to
be the President poses no perceptible risk of misallocation of either judicial power or
executive power.

It was an abuse of discretion for the District Court, which had jurisdiction to
decide the case at hand, to defer the trial until the President left office, because (a)
such a lengthy and categorical stay took no account of the individuals interest in
bringing the case to trial, (b) the decision to postpone the trial was premature, and (c)
no impingement upon the Presidents conduct of his office had been shown.

The district court abused its discretion when it stayed the case because the
court lacked the information to determine whether a stay would even be necessary
after discovery and did not consider the respondents interest in a quick trial and the
loss of evidence a delay might bring.

1 The judiciarys exercise of this power in neither this case nor any resulting cases would unduly burden
the President or prevent him from carrying out his official duties. There have been scant lawsuits against
presidents historically, such lawsuits are usually resolved quickly, and the issues in this case are relatively
unique.
The stay was not the functional equivalent of a grant of temporary immunity
because the district court has discretion to stay proceedings as part of its power to
control its own docket. 2

The United States Constitution (Constitution) does not automatically grant the
President of the United States immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private
conduct unrelated to his official duties as President

Disposition:
The Federal District Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Like every other citizen
who properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition
of her claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

2 and because they ordered discovery proceed and because possible burdens placed on the
president must be considered

S-ar putea să vă placă și