Citation network
Clinton Vs. Jones
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 1997
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 681 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Clinton V. JonesSearch
-
functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e. g., Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. Forrester v. WhiteSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the three coequal branches of Government at the expense of another. Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, see, e. g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
U. S. 579 , and may direct appropriate process to the President himself, see, e. g., United States v. NixonSearch
-
has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See, e. g., Landis v. NorthSearch
-
id., at 904 (quoting Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
until he is no longer President, at which time the plaintiff 3 As the matter is not before us, see Jones v. ClintonSearch
-
of his official responsibilities provides a defense to the fourth count of the complaint. See Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
in Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
however, is applicable to the entire Federal Judiciary, not just to this Court, cf. Arizonansfor Official English v. ArizonaSearch
-
not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.' Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlinSearch
-
except with reference to the particular facts to which it is to be applied ... .' Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.' Burton v. UnitedSearch
-
Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e. g., Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
are quite different from the interbranch separation-of-powers questions addressed here. Cf., e. g., Hancock v. TrainSearch
-
Mayo v. UnitedSearch
-
no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court. 15 See People ex rel. Hurley v. RooseveltSearch
-
DeVault v. TrumanSearch
-
Mo. 1193, 194 S. W. 2d 29 (1946). 16 See Complaints in Bailey v. KennedySearch
-
No. 757,200, and Hills v. KennedySearch
-
effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability. 18 We explained in Ferri v. AckermanSearch
-
Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749. See id., at 752 (citing Ferri v. AckermanSearch
-
See, e. g., Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
in cases alleging constitutional violations brought against federal officials is similar. See, e. g., Butz v. EconomouSearch
-
because that decision involved claims against a former President. 695 tive capacity. See Forrester v. WhiteSearch
-
the very decision Jefferson was protesting, and this Court has subsequently reaffirmed that holding. See United States v. NixonSearch
-
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
ibid., was rejected at the birth of the Republic. See, e. g., Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Langford v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 122.30 Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments, Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
of his subordinates in their most important duties.''' 457 U. S., at 749-750 (footnotes omitted). 30 See Loving v. UnitedSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 211 (1995),31 or the executive power to manage an airport, see Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. CitizensSearch
-
See J. W Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
to the Executive,33 or permit the federal courts to resolve nonjusticiable questions.34 31 See also United States v. KleinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial