Clinton v. Jones
Location: Arkansas State CapitolDocket No.: 95-1853
Petitioner: Clinton
Respondent: Jones
Decided By: Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
Opinion: 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
Argued: Monday, January 13, 1997
Decided: Tuesday, May 27, 1997
Facts of the case: Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton for sexual advances she had suffered as a Arkansas State Employee when Clinton was Governor. She stated that her rejection of his advances resulted in punishment from her state supervisors. The District Court granted his request to suspend the case but first, he had to be granted his request to use his Presidential Immunity. Clinton tried to invoke this immunity to completely dismiss the case. The District Court ended up denying his request but the judge tried to put off the trial until after the presidency was over. This was appealed and the Eighth Circuit upheld the denial for dismissal but said that holding off the trial was an unlawful grant of presidential immunity.
Basically, the question was if a serving president was immune from cicil litigation that came from the things he had done before he took office.
The Court decided, and they ruled unanimously in favor of Jones.
They held that the president could only be immune from civil litigation under extremely unusual circumstances. Neither confidentiality nor separation of powers can grant the president immunity from the judicial process. Separation of powers protects the different branches, but it still allows them to have some powers over one another.
Petitioner: Clinton
Respondent: Jones
Decided By: Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
Opinion: 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
Argued: Monday, January 13, 1997
Decided: Tuesday, May 27, 1997
Facts of the case: Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton for sexual advances she had suffered as a Arkansas State Employee when Clinton was Governor. She stated that her rejection of his advances resulted in punishment from her state supervisors. The District Court granted his request to suspend the case but first, he had to be granted his request to use his Presidential Immunity. Clinton tried to invoke this immunity to completely dismiss the case. The District Court ended up denying his request but the judge tried to put off the trial until after the presidency was over. This was appealed and the Eighth Circuit upheld the denial for dismissal but said that holding off the trial was an unlawful grant of presidential immunity.
Basically, the question was if a serving president was immune from cicil litigation that came from the things he had done before he took office.
The Court decided, and they ruled unanimously in favor of Jones.
They held that the president could only be immune from civil litigation under extremely unusual circumstances. Neither confidentiality nor separation of powers can grant the president immunity from the judicial process. Separation of powers protects the different branches, but it still allows them to have some powers over one another.
This represents the Court that ruled over this case. The highlighted block, representing John Paul Stevens, shows the justice who wrote the opinion (above) for this particular case.
My opinion on this case is very much in line with that of this docket of judges. I do not believe that the president should be pardoned for all of the things he has done before entering office just because he now holds a bigger position of power. The doctrine of Separation of Powers does protect each branch, but I take this to mean that it should truly protect all of the branches. To do this, one needs to be able to exercise restraints on the others when they try to take powers from another. The President needs some restrictions on him in order to keep this country a Democracy. If we just allow all presidents to get out of the crimes they may have committed without so much as a trial, we are allowing ourselves to be lead by an unstoppable criminal and at the same time, we are stripping the victims of the powers they have. If this case had ended in the favor of Bill Clinton, it would be a shame to our country that the poor woman whose job he ruined never got the justice she deserved.
CLINTON v. JONES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 March 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1853>.