Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Clinton v. Jones

(1997)

Supreme Court of the United States - 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 520 U.S. 681, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3254, SCDB 1996-059

tl;dr:

Immunity from private actions for Prez extends to a sphere of protected action related closely to the immunity’s justifying purpose (i.e., official duties).

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Clinton v. Jones

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Clinton v. Jones case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingClinton v. Jones case brief facts & holding

Facts:Clinton was elected to the Presidency in 1992, & re-elected...

Holding:President argues that “in all but the most exceptional cases,”...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Clinton v. Jones case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Clinton v. Jones | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves Paula Corbin Jones suing President William Jefferson Clinton for alleged sexual advances and defamation. The President argued for immunity from litigation until his term ends, but the majority opinion allowed the case to proceed. The District Judge denied the motion to dismiss based on Presidential immunity and allowed discovery to proceed, but postponed the trial until the end of the petitioner's Presidency. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed the postponement of the trial, stating that the President is not immune from private actions for damages arising from personal, private conduct. The Supreme Court granted the petition, rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed. The President is subject to the law for both private and public conduct, and the Federal Judiciary has the authority to decide cases related to the unofficial conduct of the President. The separation of powers requires interdependence and overlapping responsibility between the branches, and the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Clinton v. Jones case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Justice Breyer
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The concept of Presidential immunity from private conduct civil lawsuits is not absolute, and courts must consider the principle of noninterference with the President's public duties when scheduling a trial. It is vital for the President's official inviolability in civil cases to enable them to perform their duties without hindrance. Lower courts can implement the principle of noninterference directly or categorically through the use of rules of administration or presumptions. Private civil damages lawsuits against a sitting President are rare and can be managed by the court's discretion and the threat of sanctions.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Clinton v. Jones case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Clinton v. Jones case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Clinton v. Jones

Chat for Clinton v. Jones
brief-801
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.