Parties: Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
Procedural History: Federal District Court of Arkansas denied Defendants motion to dismiss, but also ordered stay until end of Defendant’s term. The court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and reversed the stay (delay proceedings until end of term of office).
Facts: The Respondent filed a complaint against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was the Governor of Arkansas. The Petitioner filed motions asking the district court to dismiss the case on grounds of presidential immunity and to prohibit the Respondent from re-filing the suit until after the end of his presidency. The district court rejected the presidential immunity argument, but held that no trial would take place until the Petitioner was no longer president. Both parties appealed to the United States Supreme Court
Issue: Whether the President can be involved in a lawsuit during his presidency for actions that occurred before the tenure of his presidency and that were not related to official duties of the presidency
HOLDING: Affirmed.
The President of the United States can be involved in a lawsuit during his tenure for actions not related to his official duties as President.
It was an abuse of discretion of the District Court to order a stay of this lawsuit until after the President’s tenure. The District Court’s decision to order a stay was premature and a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account what so ever of the Respondent’s interest in bringing the suit to trial.
A sitting President of The United States does not have immunity from civil lawsuits based on the President’s private actions unrelated to his public actions as President. The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office. The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co-equal branches of government. The separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.…
- 322 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Issue: The question before us is whether Equifax failed to extinguish the sexual harassment under Title VII?…
- 487 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
“The stage was set for a great constitutional struggle between a President determined not to give up executive documents and materials and a Senate committee and a federal prosecutor who are determined to get them," The White House claimed “Executive Privilege” when they refused to disclose the recorded tapes of President Nixon and his aides. Nixon and his advisors became arrogant with their possession of power. The Executive Branch was disrupting the balance of power and the separation of powers written into the Constitution. No Branch, elected official, governmental worker, or even the President is above the law, but Nixon definitely…
- 644 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Under the constitution the President has military, legislative, appointment, and diplomatic power. Our framers of the constitution wanted a strong military but not complete seizure of the government. Diplomatic powers and appointment powers are also under senate’s approval. The President’s legislative power can be over ridden by congress so by far this is not one of the power points of presidency. The President has sole powers of pardons granted. Under circumstances of war and terrorism the president engages in the most power.…
- 631 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In the United States all the president has the responsibility and the control of everything, because they're the president of the country and they have to be honsty with the people who live in the United States.…
- 292 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
In the film, “The Trial of Aaron Burr:Part I” parts of the goverenment were questioned. To start off, the Authority of the Judical Branch. Towards the end of the trial, Hay, questionned the authority of the court. He stated that he was not in denial about Burrs right to request a witness, however, he was questioning the courts authority of the writ that has been requested. After a short brawl, Wickham was asked the question of weither the court has the authority to subpeona the president. He spoke and expressed that the president is not excempt from the laws.…
- 265 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
During the late 1800s, Abraham Lincoln’s abuse of power during the American Civil War. Despite his abilities to keep America sane and together, some of his most controversial decisions might actually be considered now to be abuses of the Presidential power. During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution. The writ of Habeas Corpus protects…
- 607 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The United State’s Constitution provides a mechanism for the removal of the commander-and-chief in the case that he has violated his presidential oath. Article II of the Constitution states that a president who has committed the act of treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors shall be removed from office (“Article II, Section 4”, par. 1). Since the fourteenth century, the English Parliament has used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the general grounds to impeach officials of the Crown (Klein and Elliott, iii). The offenses that officials were charged with varied. However, the thing they all had in common was that the official had abused his or her power in some way, making him or her unfit to serve. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton defined impeachable offenses as those that cause injury to society, which includes the violation of the presidential oath (“The Federalist Papers : No. 65”, par. 2). In violating the…
- 2121 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In Colli v. Kamins, 468nA.2d 295 (Conn.Super. 1983) a lawsuit instituted on grounds of malicious prosecution based on a prior civil suit which was voluntarily withdrawn was sufficient to satisfy element (1) that the prior proceedings terminate in the plaintiff’s favor. After the initial lawsuit had been pending for more than three years the current defendant’s withdrew their case against the plaintiff’s. The defendant’s in this…
- 1964 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
The case reached the Supreme Court there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S.…
- 917 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
References: Bazemore, G., & Terry, W. C. (1997). Developing delinquent youths: A reintegrative model for…
- 4252 Words
- 18 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Bibliography: Gumpresht, M. E. (2008, March 12). Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Civil Action No. 82A04-8876-CV-285…
- 2129 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
Appellate Procedure: The respondent appealed his conviction, claiming that the fingernail scrapings were the product of an unconstitutional search under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 465 P.2d 900, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, 400 U.S. 944. Murphy then commenced the present action for federal habeas corpus relief. The District Court, in an unreported decision, denied the habeas petition, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 461 F.2d 1006. The Court of…
- 1189 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
1. Applications for asylum may not be made against the wishes of a parent of a child that lacks the mental capacity to request asylum and a third party cannot speak on behalf of a minor because it is the right of a…
- 741 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Immunity from prosecution is provided to elected leaders, head of states and other officials either for life or during their time in office, in many legal and constitutional systems. This may only be connected to matters directly related to office, or it may be for any prosecution. This immunity drive its origin from English common law based on doctrine that “rex non potest peccare” means the king (or queen) can do no wrong and the King could not be sued in his own courts.…
- 2522 Words
- 11 Pages
Powerful Essays