Can You Sue the President After He Leaves Office

Under current law, President Donald Trump is immune from ceremonious lawsuits in federal courtroom, when it comes to his official acts equally president. But a legal battle playing out in New York could determine if Mr. Trump and future presidents are discipline to civil suits in state court over their private conduct.

The example has been overshadowed by legal battles in federal court over Trump's immigration policy. Nevertheless, the stakes are high. A victory for Trump in the New York court instance could fix an of import precedent, potentially blocking other civil suits in state court over his and other presidents' individual activities.

A loss could pave the way for more than civil litigation confronting Trump at the state level, creating additional distractions for a White Business firm that is struggling early on to enact health care reform and other parts of the president'southward agenda.

At issue is a lawsuit filed in New York state court earlier this yr by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice" who claims Trump defamed her last year subsequently he publicly dismissed her allegations that he had groped her in 2007. Zervos said Trump'south public denial was detrimental to her reputation and nobility. She is seeking an apology and "at least" $two,914 in damages, co-ordinate to court documents.

The lawsuit is but one of dozens the president is facing around the state; Trump was facing at least 75 suits every bit of last October, according to a USA Today report. It's unclear how many of those cases are still open, or how Zervos' suit will bear upon them.

Trump's legal team did not respond to multiple requests from the NewsHour for comment. Zervos attorney Gloria Allred said a hearing on the case has been set for May 17.

In a Mar. 27 court filing, Trump's attorneys argued that Zervos' defamation lawsuit should be dismissed or suspended until he leaves office because, among other bug, the case could forbid him from doing his job.

Citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, Trump'due south legal team wrote: "The 'atypical importance of the President'due south duties' warrants a stay where ceremonious actions, such every bit this one, 'frequently could distract a President from his public duties to the detriment of non simply the President and his office but also the Nation that the President was designed to serve.'"

In Nixon five. Fitzgerald, the court ruled that presidents are not liable for amercement in civil lawsuits if the litigation concerns their official acts every bit president. The determination only applied to civil suits in federal court, but legal experts said the ruling has been interpreted to employ to land courts also.

Simply the decision did not address whether current or onetime presidents are immune from civil litigation over private matters, either in federal or state court.

Samuel Issacharoff, a constitutional law professor at New York Academy, said there are laws in place that protect presidents from existence dragged into time-consuming litigation. However, he and other legal experts said it remains unclear if Supreme Courtroom decisions like Nixon v. Fitzgerald tin be used as precedent in a ceremonious suit filed confronting Trump in state court.

"I don't recall Nixon five. Fitzgerald is particularly helpful for Donald Trump," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. Zervos' lawsuit, he added, "has very little resemblance" to the court's 1982 decision involving erstwhile President Richard Nixon.

This ten December image taken from C-Span tv set shows then-President Bill Clinton giving videotaped sworn degradation in the Paula Jones sexual discrimination conform. (Photo by AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

Zervos' lawsuit could come down to a separate decades-old Supreme Courtroom ruling about presidential amnesty.

In the 1997 instance Clinton five. Jones, in which former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused President Nib Clinton of sexual harassment, Clinton invoked presidential immunity in an attempt to have the civil conform against him suspended. Merely the court ruled that sitting presidents could exist subject to civil lawsuits in federal court over non-official acts. The determination only applies to litigation at the federal level, however, and did not accost whether a president is immune from ceremonious lawsuits over private issues in state court.

Trump's attorneys cited that outstanding question from Clinton 5. Jones in their motion concluding month, arguing the Supreme Courtroom needs to resolve information technology earlier the land court hears Zervos' suit.

"President Trump's lawyers are entirely right that the Supreme Court has not decided this question," said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Constabulary, calculation that the president's attorneys "are seizing on [the] linguistic communication" of the ruling.

Servos' lawyers disputed the president'due south claims in a court filing this week, arguing that Clinton v. Jones does not requite Trump immunity from the lawsuit.

"Clinton v. Jones makes clear that this Accused is not entitled to qualified amnesty — or any other species of official acts [of] immunity — because this instance involved unofficial comport past Defendant before he assumed office," Zervos' lawyers said in the filing, adding: "Precisely because Defendant's underlying tortious beliefs has nothing to do with his current duties or office, and because it occurred before he took that office, he does not have immunity from adapt."

The president'south legal squad too argued in its motion that the Supremacy Clause of the constitution "immunizes the President from beingness sued in land courtroom." Trump'southward attorneys said the clause makes federal police force "the supreme constabulary of the country," and limits country courts' authorization to challenge federal statute.

Like issues have been addressed in previous Supreme Court cases, just legal experts said it's unclear if the clause tin can make a president immune from civil suits in state court. In 1821, McClung five. Silliman held that state courts could not gild federal officials to do anything that falls outside their discretion. Tarble'due south Case, an 1872 ruling, held that state courts could not order federal jailers to free federal prisoners.

"These weird old cases are all based on the notion that information technology would be foreign [to] sort of requite states power over federal policy that they're not supposed to have," Vladeck said.

Turley said he was skeptical the argument would work in the current lawsuit against Trump. The president's legal team is "suggesting that somehow a country proceeding might violate the Supremacy Clause," Turley said. "I don't know of much support for that proposition."

Every bit for Zervos, Allred, 1 of her attorneys, said they aren't bankroll downwardly. "We do not believe that the President of the U.s. enjoys legal amnesty from our defamation lawsuit," Allred said in a statement. "We expect forwards to arguing this consequence in court."

charbonneaudiscus.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/presidents-immune-civil-lawsuits-state-court-private-conduct

Share this post