In a recent Justia blog post, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar examines the differences between the civil suit pending against President Donald Trump and the one that was brought against President Bill Clinton two decades ago.
"Last week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers (who do not work for the federal government but who represent him personally) filed papers in court announcing their intent to seek a temporary dismissal of the lawsuit during the time Mr. Trump is serving as president, so that he may attend to his important official duties as leader of the nation and the free world.
"How likely is such a motion to succeed? Many news analysts seem dubious, based on the fact that similar arguments were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court two decades ago in Clinton v. Jones. There, President Bill Clinton argued that the federal civil damage lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones for sexual harassment should have been delayed until after he left the Oval Office, on the ground that discovery and other aspects of the civil litigation could distract him and his administration from fulfilling constitutional duties. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, rejected the president’s claim for executive immunity, reasoning that a wise and sound district court judge can manage discovery and other aspects of a civil lawsuit so as to prevent it from disrupting the affairs of the executive branch.
"The key question thus becomes: what reason is there to believe the courts (including and especially the Supreme Court) would resolve the Trump case differently than the Clinton matter?"
Read the full post at verdict.justia.com.