Comment by R. Brent Walton
On January 13, 1997, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones. The main issue argued before the Court was whether the opportunity to execute the duties and functions of the Office of the President is of such paramount importance that the President is absolutely immune from suit even for allegations that he violated the constitutional rights of an individual, stemming from events wholly unrelated to his function and duties. The Court has already held, in Fitzgerald v. Nixon, that the President is absolutely immune from suit for actions that are within the “outer perimeter” of his duties. In this case, the Court will decide whether the logic and rationale of the Fitzgerald decision should be extended beyond that outer perimeter. Extending the rationale of Fitzgerald to Clinton v. Jones will have the effect of saying there is no outer perimeter to Presidential function and thus the President is always immune from judicial oversight while in office. This Comment suggests that such a result would be tantamount to treason against the Constitution. In America, the rule of law is the rule and the law. If any government official offends it, he is accountable in court. Indeed, from the perspective of an individual, that is the primary function of the courts. Furthermore, holding the President accountable in a court of law is consistent with the history and tradition of this country and was the intent of the Framers in establishing the federal government's tripartite structure. To grant the President, through judicial proclamation, a blanket immunity for any act because of his status, no matter how attenuated from any official function, is to rewrite history, tradition, and the Constitution. If President Clinton is to avoid suit in Jones v. Clinton it will be because he is excused from the particulars of the suit as is permitted under executive privilege cases or because the judge stays the proceedings pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not, however, because he is immune from judicial power.
About the Author
R. Brent Walton. B.A. 1990, Reed College; J.D. Candidate 1997, Tulane School of Law.
Citation
71 Tul. L. Rev. 897 (1997)