## Facts

- Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, sued President William Jefferson Clinton in his personal capacity for alleged sexual advances made while he was Governor of Arkansas and alleged retaliation after she rejected them.
- Jones filed federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and related state-law claims seeking damages.
- Clinton moved to dismiss, asserting presidential immunity and requesting deferral of other proceedings during his presidency.
- The district court denied dismissal on immunity grounds, allowed discovery, but stayed the trial until the end of Clinton’s presidency.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of immunity and reversed the stay as the functional equivalent of temporary immunity.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the Constitution requires delaying federal civil litigation against a sitting President for unofficial conduct occurring before taking office.

## Issues

1. Whether separation-of-powers principles require federal courts to stay private civil damages litigation against a sitting President for unofficial conduct predating the presidency.
2. Whether a sitting President is entitled to temporary immunity from federal civil process for such unofficial, pre-office conduct.
3. Whether ordinary judicial case-management authority is constitutionally sufficient to address any burdens on presidential duties without a categorical stay.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously held that the Constitution does not require deferring federal civil damages litigation against a sitting President for unofficial conduct occurring before taking office.
- The Court affirmed the rejection of presidential immunity and affirmed the reversal of the trial stay, allowing the case to proceed during the presidency.
- The Court emphasized that absolute presidential immunity recognized for official acts does not extend to purely private conduct unrelated to presidential duties.
- The Court relied on district courts’ ordinary case-management tools to mitigate interference with the President’s responsibilities rather than creating a categorical constitutional postponement rule.
- The Court limited its decision to federal civil damages litigation and did not decide questions involving comparable state-court suits or compelled presidential attendance at particular times or places.

## Legal Principles

- A sitting President has no constitutional immunity from federal civil damages suits based on unofficial conduct that occurred before taking office and is unrelated to official duties.
- Separation of powers does not impose a categorical bar to Article III adjudication of private civil claims against a sitting President for unofficial acts.
- Absolute presidential immunity applies to official acts within the outer perimeter of presidential responsibilities, not to private conduct.
- Courts may use standard judicial administration (scheduling orders, discovery limits, protective orders, and other tailored measures) to reduce burdens on the President’s time while permitting litigation to proceed.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts may adjudicate private civil damages claims against a sitting President for unofficial, pre-presidency conduct without a constitutionally required stay, with any operational burdens addressed through ordinary case management rather than temporary presidential immunity.


Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)