Part I sets out the basic concepts of immunity, both absolute and qualified, and proceeds to provide the relevant historical precedent regarding legislative, judicial, and executive immunity. The discussion regarding executive immunity covers Supreme Court precedent from 1895 to the watershed case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982. Part I focuses on Nixon v. Fitzgerald because both the district court and the court of appeals rely most heavily on this case in their respective opinions in Jones v. Clinton. Part II discusses the district court and the court of appeals opinions in Jones v. Clinton. Part III presents the argument that the court of appeals erred in overturning the district court's order to stay the proceedings until the end of President Clinton's term of office. This argument has two elements: (1) that the court of appeals both misinterpreted and dismissed binding precedent; and (2) that the district court has the discretion to delay proceedings. Therefore, the court of appeals abused its discretion by interfering with that decision.
Jones v. Clinton:Reconsidering Presidential Immunity,
Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int.
Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol1/iss1/8