|
Clinton v Jones
520 U.S. 681 [1997]
Author: Sam Biers
Presidential Immunities
Relevant Facts: While the Governor of
Arkansas Clinton, attending a conference at the Excelsior Hotel,
gave a speech. Jones, Respondent, while working as a state
employee staffed the registration desk. Allegedly
Petitioner made sexual advances of which respondent
rejected. Jones then claims her superiors dealt with her in
a hostile and rude manner, changing her duties to punish her for
rejecting Clinton’s advances.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the Constitution
affords the President temporary immunity from civil litigation
arising out of events that occurred before he took office?
Court’s Holding: No
Procedure: Four ct. civil complaint under 42
USC 1983, charging violations of civil right under color of state
law. D. judge denied motion to dismiss, but ordered the
trial stayed until the end of petitioner’s presidency.
Both appealed. Ct. of App. affirmed denial, and reversed
stay claiming it amounted to a functional equivalent of a grant
of temporary immunity. Affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): [Fitzgerald] Former
President is entitled to absolute immunity from damages
predicated on his official acts. The Office of the
President created under A2, and the separation of powers, limits
the judiciary from interference with the Executive.
Court Rationale: The respondent is merely
asking the courts to decide, A3, case and controversy under their
jurisdiction. The litigation 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 or executive power.Sitting Presidents have responded to
court orders to provide testimony, with sufficient frequency that
such interactions between the Judicial and Executive can scarcely
be thought of as a novelty.
Plaintiff’s Argument: (Resp) The acts
involved in the suit relate only to the individual’s actions
prior to becoming President.
Defendant’s Argument: (Pet) The
separation of powers doctrine limits the authority of the
Judiciary from interfering with the Executive Branch.
|
