Clinton v. Jones

United States Supreme Court
520 U.S. 681 (1997)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The United States Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation arising from events that occurred before taking office. The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.

Facts:

In 1991, William Jefferson Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas.
In 1991, Paula Corbin Jones was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission.
On May 8, 1991, during an official conference at a hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, Jones was working at the registration desk.
Jones alleged that Danny Ferguson, an Arkansas State Police officer, persuaded her to visit Governor Clinton in a hotel business suite.
Jones alleged that inside the suite, Governor Clinton made 'abhorrent' sexual advances, which she vehemently rejected.
Following the alleged incident, Jones claimed her superiors at work treated her in a hostile manner and changed her duties as punishment.
After Clinton was elected President, Jones alleged that Ferguson and various persons authorized to speak for President Clinton publicly defamed her by denying the incident occurred and branding her a liar.

Procedural Posture:

Paula Corbin Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Clinton, as defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of Presidential immunity and requested that all proceedings be deferred until his term ended.
The District Court (a federal trial court) denied Clinton's motion to dismiss but ordered that any trial in the case be stayed until after the end of his Presidency.
Both Jones and Clinton appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's denial of the dismissal motion but reversed the order staying the trial, allowing the entire case to proceed.
Clinton, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Constitution grant a sitting President temporary immunity from civil lawsuits arising from events that occurred before the President took office?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No. A sitting President is not entitled to temporary immunity from civil lawsuits based on events that occurred before taking office. The principal rationale for affording official immunity is to enable public officials to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a decision may give rise to personal liability. This reasoning is inapplicable to unofficial conduct, especially acts that occurred before the presidency began. The doctrine of separation of powers is not violated by allowing this litigation to proceed, as the judiciary is not being asked to perform an executive function or to curtail the scope of the President's official powers. While the litigation may place burdens on the President's time and attention, this is not a sufficient basis to establish a constitutional violation, as historical precedent shows that sitting Presidents have been subject to judicial process without impairing the Executive Branch's ability to function.

Concurring - Justice Breyer

No. While the Constitution does not grant an automatic temporary immunity, a constitutional principle forbids a federal judge from interfering with the President’s discharge of his public duties. Once the President makes a specific showing of a conflict between the judicial proceeding and his public duties, a court may be required to defer the litigation. The majority understates the potential for such litigation to distract the President and impair the functioning of the Executive Branch. However, in this case, the President had not yet made the required specific showing of need, so the lower court's decision to allow the case to proceed was correct for now.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Presidential immunity, establishing that it is functional—protecting official acts—rather than a personal privilege of the officeholder. By rejecting a claim for temporary immunity for unofficial, pre-presidential conduct, the Court affirmed the principle that the President is not above the law and is subject to the judicial process like other citizens. This ruling sets a precedent that increases the potential legal vulnerability of sitting presidents for their private actions, potentially opening the door for civil litigation that could, as a practical matter, distract from official duties, even if it does not constitutionally violate the separation of powers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"