Clinton v. Jones

520 U.S. 681 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Jones (P) alleged that Clinton (D) sexually harassed her. This conduct occurred in 1991. Afterward, D was elected President of the United States. P sued D. In response to the complaint, petitioner promptly advised the District Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity. The District Judge ruled that discovery in the case could go forward, but ordered any trial stayed until the end of petitioner's Presidency. Both parties appealed. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, but, because it regarded the order postponing the trial until the President leaves office as the 'functional equivalent' of a grant of temporary immunity, it reversed that order. Writing for the majority, Judge Bowman explained that 'the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society, that he could find no case in which any public official ever has been granted any immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue.' The majority specifically rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch through scheduling orders, potential contempt citations, and sanctions would violate separation of powers principles. Judge Bowman suggested that 'judicial case management sensitive to the burdens of the presidency and the demands of the President's schedule,' would avoid the perceived danger.