Petitioner
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
Respondent
Paula Corbin Jones
Petitioner's Claim
That the president of the United States is immune from a lawsuit challenginghis actions prior to his taking office during the term of his presidency.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert S. Bennett
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Gilbert K. Davis
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor,William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 May 1997
Decision
That the president does not enjoy immunity from a civil lawsuit for conduct not related to his official acts.
Significance
The Court's decision reemphasizes that although the president may not be suedfor acts relating to his official duties, the president is subject to the same laws regulating purely private conduct to which the general population issubject.
Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States in 1992, and was re-elected in 1996. In May of 1994, Paula Corbin Jones, a former employee of thestate of Arkansas, filed a civil lawsuit against Clinton in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Jones claimed that in 1991, while Clinton was still governor of Arkansas, Clinton made unwanted sexual advances toward her and that when she rejected these advances, she was retaliated against by her superiors at work. Clinton immediately filed a motion in the district court seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of presidential immunity. The dismissal would allow Jones to refile the lawsuit after President Clinton left office. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, but ruled that any trial should be postponed until after Clinton's presidency. Both parties appealed the decision of the district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that Clinton did not have immunity from the lawsuit, but disagreed that thetrial should be postponed until after Clinton's term was over. President Clinton then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court Rejects Immunity Claim
On appeal, President Clinton argued that the Constitution provides the president with a temporary immunity, during his term of office, from a civil lawsuit concerning events that occurred before he took office. President Clinton first argued that other Supreme Court cases granting immunity to executive officials applied to his case. In particular, President Clinton relied on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. In Fitzgerald, the Court held that a president is entitled to absolute immunity from any lawsuit seeking monetary damages which challenge his official acts. In other words, the president cannot be sued for conduct which relates to his duties as the president. However, the Court rejected President Clinton's argumentthat the Fitzgerald case provided immunity for actions not related tothe president's official duties. The Court reasoned that Fitzgerald emphasized that presidential immunity was based on the functions of the presidency, and thus the Fitzgerald decision was inapplicable to a lawsuit challenging conduct which occurred before Clinton become president.
President Clinton also argued that he could not be subject to suit during theterm of his presidency based on the doctrine of separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine deals with the allocation of power among the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. President Clinton argued that separation of powers principles were implicated because subjecting him to a lawsuit during his presidency would impose burdens on the performance of his official duties. The Court noted that in other contexts, thejudicial branch has reviewed the official actions of the president and otherexecutive officials. Also, various presidents have been subpoenaed by federalcourts or have provided videotaped testimony in court proceedings. The Courtthen reasoned:
The Supreme Court's decision was an important reminder of the principle thatdates back to the adoption of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century: in ademocratic nation no person, including the president, is above the law. Thus, under the Supreme Court's decision, a sitting president may not avoid a civil lawsuit merely because he or she happens to be president. Rather, the president will enjoy immunity only where the actions relate to the official actsand duties of the presidency.
Related Cases
Should Civil Suits against the President Be Stalled Until He Is Out of Office?
The administration of President Bill Clinton, with its many attendant scandals, raised a number of issues concerning the presidency, ethics, and the law.Among these issues was the question, "Should civil suits against the president be stalled until he is out of office?" Given Clinton's enormous popularity,it is likely that the majority of Americans would have said "yes."
But as various Supreme Court justices have observed in different situations,America's is a government "of laws, not of men." Should Bill Clinton be exempt from the law because he is popular, or because he is president? Should a president be subject to civil suits? Many Americans considered Jones's suit something less than a grave matter.
To look specifically at Clinton, Jones, or the suit, however, is to miss thepoint. In answering the question regarding presidents and civil suits, Americans should evaluate it without regard to personalities. Then they would be left with two issues: on the one hand, there was the fact that the president should not be above the law; on the other hand, responding to personal lawsuitsbrought against him would distract him from the important business of beingpresident.
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
Respondent
Paula Corbin Jones
Petitioner's Claim
That the president of the United States is immune from a lawsuit challenginghis actions prior to his taking office during the term of his presidency.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert S. Bennett
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Gilbert K. Davis
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor,William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 May 1997
Decision
That the president does not enjoy immunity from a civil lawsuit for conduct not related to his official acts.
Significance
The Court's decision reemphasizes that although the president may not be suedfor acts relating to his official duties, the president is subject to the same laws regulating purely private conduct to which the general population issubject.
Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States in 1992, and was re-elected in 1996. In May of 1994, Paula Corbin Jones, a former employee of thestate of Arkansas, filed a civil lawsuit against Clinton in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Jones claimed that in 1991, while Clinton was still governor of Arkansas, Clinton made unwanted sexual advances toward her and that when she rejected these advances, she was retaliated against by her superiors at work. Clinton immediately filed a motion in the district court seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of presidential immunity. The dismissal would allow Jones to refile the lawsuit after President Clinton left office. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, but ruled that any trial should be postponed until after Clinton's presidency. Both parties appealed the decision of the district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that Clinton did not have immunity from the lawsuit, but disagreed that thetrial should be postponed until after Clinton's term was over. President Clinton then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court Rejects Immunity Claim
On appeal, President Clinton argued that the Constitution provides the president with a temporary immunity, during his term of office, from a civil lawsuit concerning events that occurred before he took office. President Clinton first argued that other Supreme Court cases granting immunity to executive officials applied to his case. In particular, President Clinton relied on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. In Fitzgerald, the Court held that a president is entitled to absolute immunity from any lawsuit seeking monetary damages which challenge his official acts. In other words, the president cannot be sued for conduct which relates to his duties as the president. However, the Court rejected President Clinton's argumentthat the Fitzgerald case provided immunity for actions not related tothe president's official duties. The Court reasoned that Fitzgerald emphasized that presidential immunity was based on the functions of the presidency, and thus the Fitzgerald decision was inapplicable to a lawsuit challenging conduct which occurred before Clinton become president.
President Clinton also argued that he could not be subject to suit during theterm of his presidency based on the doctrine of separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine deals with the allocation of power among the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. President Clinton argued that separation of powers principles were implicated because subjecting him to a lawsuit during his presidency would impose burdens on the performance of his official duties. The Court noted that in other contexts, thejudicial branch has reviewed the official actions of the president and otherexecutive officials. Also, various presidents have been subpoenaed by federalcourts or have provided videotaped testimony in court proceedings. The Courtthen reasoned:
If the Judiciary may severely burden the ExecutiveBranch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and ifit may direct appropriate process to the President himself, it must follow that the federal courts have the power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President's time and energy that is a mere by-product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the directburden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions. We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.
The Supreme Court's decision was an important reminder of the principle thatdates back to the adoption of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century: in ademocratic nation no person, including the president, is above the law. Thus, under the Supreme Court's decision, a sitting president may not avoid a civil lawsuit merely because he or she happens to be president. Rather, the president will enjoy immunity only where the actions relate to the official actsand duties of the presidency.
Related Cases
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
Should Civil Suits against the President Be Stalled Until He Is Out of Office?
The administration of President Bill Clinton, with its many attendant scandals, raised a number of issues concerning the presidency, ethics, and the law.Among these issues was the question, "Should civil suits against the president be stalled until he is out of office?" Given Clinton's enormous popularity,it is likely that the majority of Americans would have said "yes."
But as various Supreme Court justices have observed in different situations,America's is a government "of laws, not of men." Should Bill Clinton be exempt from the law because he is popular, or because he is president? Should a president be subject to civil suits? Many Americans considered Jones's suit something less than a grave matter.
To look specifically at Clinton, Jones, or the suit, however, is to miss thepoint. In answering the question regarding presidents and civil suits, Americans should evaluate it without regard to personalities. Then they would be left with two issues: on the one hand, there was the fact that the president should not be above the law; on the other hand, responding to personal lawsuitsbrought against him would distract him from the important business of beingpresident.
User Comments Add a comment…