WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PETITIONER v. PAULA CORBIN JONES [No.

95-1853] Issues: WON the decision of the Court of appeals affirming the District Judges dismissal of the claim of presidential immunity violates the doctrine of separation of powers. WON the decision of the Court of appeals affirming the District Judges dismissal of the claim of presidential immunity would detract from the Presidents ability to discharge his official duties Facts of the Case: On an official conference where petitioner Clinton gave a speech, petitioner allegedly made sexual advances on Jones which she rejected and after Clinton became president Ferguson defamed her by making a statement that she had accepted the advances of Clinton. The charges of Jones for damages against Clinton- that involves violation of constitutional rights in conspiracy with Ferguson, federal law, state common law by infliction of emotional distress and for defamation- with the exception of defamation, were done before Clinton became President. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss citing presidential immunity which the District Judge dismissed but postponed any trial until the end of Clintons presidency. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but reversed the postponement of any trial until the end of petitioners presidency, since there is no case in which a public official had been granted immunity for his unofficial acts and such decision would be a temporary immunity Held: The Federal court held from the rationalization that Presidential immunity is granted so that the President would not be unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties, there is no ground for immunity for unofficial conduct. Absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of the Presidents office. The argument of petitioner that the trial should be postponed until the end of his term based on the constitutional mandate of separation of powers and that his vast duties demand that he focus his attention solely on its discharge cannot be sustained as well since the doctrine of separation of powers was created to prevent encroachment of the other branches on the powers of another, for example the president legislating laws. It does not apply to the case since the Judiciary would not be performing executive action but would in fact perform its constitutional function of deciding cases. The presidents contention that such trial would allow the judiciary to impair on the executives function is unmeritorious. Such trial would not occupy so much of the petitioner s time that he would not be able to perform his functions furthermore, the system of the government of the U.S provide for a certain interdependence of the branches as well as independence. Chief Justice Marshall had provided propositions to support this: First, the court have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law

Second, it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances

Finally, the postponement that the District Judge awarded is a gross abuse of discretion since such a long time takes no consideration of the respondent and the evidences that may be lost. Ruling: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.