Case Analysis _ William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones

Running Head: William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones

Parties

William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones

Facts

William Jefferson Clinton, the defendant, was elected President of the United States in 1992. In 1991, William Jefferson Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. In 1991, Paula Corbin Jones was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. The defendant attended a conference that year at a hotel staffed by the plaintiff. Jones claims that she was summoned by Danny Fergson, a state trooper, to go to the Defendant’s suite. Jones claims that while in that room the defendant made sexual advances toward her which she rejected. She also claims that her supervisors consequently changed her duties and treated her unfairly because she rejected the defendant’s sexual advances. Plaintiff Paula Jones filed a civil action against defendant (sitting) President Bill Clinton, alleging that he made “abhorrent” sexual advances. She sought $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Defendant Clinton sought to dismiss the claim on the ground of presidential immunity, or, alternatively, to delay the proceedings until his term of office had expired.

Procedure

The district court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered discovery to proceed, but it also ordered that the trial be stayed until the end of Clinton’s term. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and reversed the stay of the trial. President Clinton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue

Does the President have immunity from all suits against him while he occupies the office?

Explain the applicable law(s)

The doctrine of separation of powers calls for Congress, the legislative branch, to enact legislation and appropriate funds. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and is also charged with ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed. The judicial branch is charged with interpreting the laws in the course of applying them to particular disputes. No member of one branch owes his or her tenure in that position to a member of any other branch; no branch can encroach on the power of another. This system is often referred to as being a system of checks and balances; that is, the powers given to each branch operate to keep the other branches from being able to seize enough power to dominate the government (Kubasek, ch.5, pg. 107).

The first charges that petitioner, acting under color of state law, deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution, in violation of Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The second charges that petitioner and Ferguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights, also actionable under federal law. See Rev. Stat. §1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Cornell Law).

Holding

The Constitution does not protect the President from federal civil litigation involving actions committed before entering office. There is no requirement to stay the case until the President leaves office. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

Separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office. The court ruled that they did not need to decide "whether a claim comparable to petitioner's assertion of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal" (a state court), but noted that "If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation-of-powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns. The court also found that "our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place." In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties (Wikipedia)."