Clinton Told to Face Harassment Charges

A federal appeals court said Tuesday that President Clinton, just like any other citizen would have to do, must answer to civil charges that he sexually harassed a former Arkansas state employee.

On a 2-1 vote, the court said that the president is neither immune from damage suits for his private behavior nor entitled to delay responding to a lawsuit simply because he holds high office.

“The president, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all members of our society,” a panel of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis said in a long-awaited ruling.

Indeed, the ruling has been awaited for so long that it may not prove to be a serious setback for Clinton, or at least for his reelection prospects.

Tuesday’s ruling came 13 months after a U.S. district judge first ruled on the matter. Because the president’s lawyers can appeal further to the full appeals court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is unlikely that Clinton will have to respond to the explosive allegations until he is either a private citizen or in his second term as president.

Paula Corbin Jones was a low-level state employee in 1991 when, she says, then-Gov. Clinton invited her to a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room and crudely propositioned her.

When Clinton later denied that the incident ever took place, Jones filed a lawsuit in 1994 demanding $700,000 in damages for defamation.

In response, the president’s lawyers said, he “vigorously denies” her claims, and they have sought to have them dismissed without a hearing or at least delayed until he leaves the White House.

The Supreme Court has said that a president cannot be sued over his “official acts” but it has not spoken on whether a sitting president can be forced to deal with a civil suit while he is in office.

“I disagree with the split decision of the 8th circuit panel,” Robert S. Bennett, the president’s lawyer, said in a statement. “I intend to seek review by the full appeals court and, if need be, the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Bennett has several weeks to urge a majority of the 17 judges to reconsider the panel’s decision. If they refuse, he then will have 90 more days to file an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for Jones would have another 30 days to respond. That timetable suggests that the appeal is not likely to come before the justices until October, too late for the lawsuit to directly affect Clinton before election day in November.

“That’s their end game. They want to delay, delay and delay,” said Joseph Cammarata, a Fairfax, Va., lawyer who represents Jones. “They don’t want the president to have to answer questions about where he was on that day, what he did and about similar courses of conduct.”

The attorney said that he also would try to force Clinton to “undergo a medical examination.”

“There is a question here involving distinguishing characteristics,” Cammarata said.

In a brief comment, Jones told CNN that she was “thrilled” with Tuesday’s decision.

The decision arose from an appeal filed by Bennett.

In December 1994, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock agreed to delay a trial over the sexual harassment claim until the president left office. But she also said that he could be required to answer written questions.

That split decision did not satisfy Bennett.

In September, he urged the appeals court to throw out the lawsuit entirely. A president could become “a litigation magnet” unless he is given full immunity, he argued. Further, the president should not have to suffer the “distraction” of responding to suits involving private matters while he holds office.

The appeals court majority rejected both arguments.

“A sitting president is not immune from civil suits for his unofficial acts,” and a trial on such claims can go forward even while the president holds office, said Judges Pasco M. Bowman of Kansas City and C. Arlen Beam of Lincoln, Neb.

Judge Donald Ross of Omaha dissented.