Clinton v. Jones

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

520 U.S. 681 (1997)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawPresidential immunityseparation of powersArticle IIIArticle IIunofficial conductcivil damagesstay of proceedings

Facts

Jones, a private citizen, sued President Clinton in federal court for damages based on alleged conduct in 1991, when he was Governor of Arkansas, before he became President. Her complaint alleged federal civil rights claims and state-law claims, including allegations of sexual advances, workplace retaliation, and later defamatory statements. Clinton argued that the Constitution required federal courts, except in the most exceptional cases, to defer private civil damages actions against a sitting President until he leaves office. The alleged misconduct, except possibly part of the defamation count, was unrelated to Clinton's official duties as President and occurred before he was elected to that office.

Issue

Does the Constitution require federal courts to stay private civil damages actions against a sitting President based on unofficial conduct that occurred before he took office? If not, may a district court nonetheless defer trial until the President leaves office as an exercise of its discretion?

Rule

The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all, or all but the most exceptional, private civil damages actions against a sitting President arising from unofficial conduct occurring before office. A President has absolute immunity only for civil damages liability predicated on official acts within the outer perimeter of presidential authority, not for unofficial conduct; although district courts retain broad discretion to manage their dockets with appropriate respect for the Presidency, a stay must be justified by its demonstrated need and cannot rest on a lengthy, categorical deferral that disregards the plaintiff's interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While serving as President, Daniel Mercer is sued in federal district court in Chicago by Lena Ortiz for battery allegedly committed at a private fundraising dinner in Phoenix six years before Mercer took office. Mercer moves to dismiss, arguing that the Constitution gives a sitting President temporary immunity from all private civil damages suits based on pre-presidential conduct until he leaves office.

How should the federal court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a sitting President has no temporary constitutional immunity from federal civil damages litigation arising from unofficial conduct that occurred before taking office. Presidential absolute immunity is limited to civil damages liability predicated on official acts within the outer perimeter of presidential authority. Separation of powers does not require dismissal or automatic postponement of such a suit.