[EDITOR'R NOTE: Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, can proceed with her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton, according to this Jan 9, 1996 federal appeals court ruling.
Jones alleges that in 1991 Clinton made unwanted advances toward her in a Little Rock hotel. At that time, Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said lawyers for Jones could seek depositions. The three-judge panel considered a December 1994 ruling by a U.S. District Court in Little Rock that the trial could proceed, but not until the president leaves office.
Lawyers for the president have argued that allowing this suit to go forward would distract the president from his official duties.]
___________
No. 95-1050
No. 95-1167
___________
Paula Corbin Jones, *
*
Appellee - Cross-Appellant, *
*
v. *
*
William Jefferson Clinton, *
*
Appellant - Cross-Appellee. *
*
Danny Ferguson, *
*
Defendant. *
__________________________________
* Appeals from the United
United States of America; Akhil * States District Court
Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of * for the Eastern District
Law Yale Law School; Susan Low * of Arkansas.
Bloch, Professor of Law, *
Georgetown Law School; Harold H. *
Bruff, Donald Phillip Rothschild *
Research Professor, George *
Washington University National Law *
Center; Susan Estrich, Robert *
Kingsley Professor of Law and *
Political Science, University of *
Southern California Law Center; *
Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Professor *
of Law, Harvard Law School; *
Daniel A. Farber, Henry J. *
Fletcher Professor & Associate *
Dean, University of Minnesota Law *
School; Philip P. Frickey, Faegre *
& Benson Professor, University of *
Minnesota Law School; Paul D. *
Gewirtz, Potter Stewart Professor *
of Constitutional Law, Yale Law *
School; Gerald Gunther, William *
Nelson Cromwell Professor, *
Stanford Law School; John C. *
Jeffries, Jr., Emerson G. Spies *
Professor and Horace W. Goldsmith *
Research Professor and Academic *
- 1-
Associate Dean, University of *
Virginia School of Law; Sanford *
Levinson, W. St. John Garwood & *
W. St. John Garwood Jr. Regents *
Chair in Law, University of Texas *
School of Law; Burke Marshall, *
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor *
Emeritus, Yale Law School; Judith *
Resnik, Orrin B. Evans Professor, *
University of Southern California *
Law Center; Suzanna Sherry, *
Earl R. Larson Professor, *
University of Minnesota Law *
School; Steven H. Shiffrin, *
Professor of Law, Cornell Law *
School; Kathleen M. Sullivan, *
Professor of Law, Stanford Law *
School; Laurence H. Tribe, *
Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of *
Constitutional Law, Harvard Law *
School; The American Civil *
Liberties Union Foundation; *
Stephen B. Burbank, Robert G. *
Fuller, Jr. Professor of Law, *
University of Pennsylvania Law *
School; William Cohen, C. Wendell *
and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor *
of Law, Stanford University Law *
School; Larry Kramer, Professor of *
Law, New York University Law *
School; Deborah J. Merritt, *
Professor of Law and Women's *
Studies, University of Illinois *
College of Law; Geoffrey P. Miller,*
Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, *
The University of Chicago Law *
School; Robert F. Nagel, Ira *
Rothgerber Professor of *
Constitutional Law, University of *
Colorado Law School; Richard *
Parker, Professor of Law, Harvard *
Law School; L.A. Scot Powe, Jr., *
Anne Green Regent Professor of Law,*
University of Texas Law School; *
Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger *
Professor of Legal History, *
Northwestern University School of *
Law; Ronald D. Rotunda, Albert E. *
Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, *
University of Illinois College of *
Law; William Van Alstyne, *
William R. and Thomas C. Perkins *
- 2-
Professor of Law, Duke University *
School of Law, *
*
Amicus Curiae. *
___________
Submitted: September 14, 1995
Filed: January 9, 1996
___________
Before BOWMAN, ROSS, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
___________
BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
We have before us in this appeal the novel question whether
the person currently serving as President of the United States is
entitled to immunity from civil liability for his unofficial acts,
i.e., for acts committed by him in his personal capacity rather
than in his capacity as President. William Jefferson Clinton, who
here is sued personally, and not as President, appeals from the
District Court's decision staying trial proceedings, for the
duration of his presidency, on claims brought against him by Paula
Corbin Jones. He argues that the court instead should have
dismissed Mrs. Jones's suit without prejudice to the refiling of
her suit when he no longer is President. Mr. Clinton also
challenges the District Court's decision to allow discovery to
proceed in the case during the stay of the trial. Mrs. Jones
cross-appeals, seeking to have the stays entered by the District
Court lifted, so that she might proceed to trial on her claims.(1)
(1)In addition to staying the trial on Mrs. Jones's claims
against Mr. Clinton, the District Court also stayed trial against
Mr. Clinton's co-defendant in the suit, Arkansas State Trooper
Danny Ferguson.
- 3-
We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand to the District
Court.(2)
On May 6, 1994, Mrs. Jones filed suit in the District Court
against Mr. Clinton and Danny Ferguson, an Arkansas State Trooper
who was assigned to Mr. Clinton's security detail during his tenure
as governor of Arkansas, for actions alleged to have occurred
beginning with an incident in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel suite
on May 8, 1991, when Mr. Clinton was governor and Mrs. Jones was a
state employee. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 1983 (1988), Mrs. Jones
alleges that Mr. Clinton, under color of state law, violated her
constitutional rights to equal protection and due process by
sexually harassing and assaulting her. She further alleges that
Mr. Clinton and Trooper Ferguson conspired to violate those rights,
a claim she brings under 42 U.S.C. SS 1985 (1988). Her complaint
also includes two supplemental state law claims, one against Mr.
Clinton for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the
other against both Mr. Clinton and Trooper Ferguson for defamation.
Mr. Clinton, asserting a claim of immunity from civil suit,
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to its
refiling when he is no longer President or, in the alternative, for
a stay of the proceedings for so long as he is President. On
December 28, 1994, the District Court, rejecting the application of
absolute immunity, denied Mr. Clinton's motion to dismiss the
complaint. The court did find, however, that for separation of
powers reasons Mr. Clinton was entitled to a "temporary or limited
(2)In addition to the briefs of the parties, amicus briefs have
been filed in support of Mr. Clinton by the United States and by a
group of law professors including Professors Amar, Bloch, Bruff,
