,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1) Today's decision in Zervos v. Trump holds that president can be sued in state court for non-official conduct, citing Clinton v. Jones which held President Clinton not right to postpone a civil suit against him in federal court.
2) Trump and dissent note in Clinton case Court said STATE court suits "may implicate concerns that are quite different." President should not be under the control of state courts. But should that make a difference? Here is why not:
3) There are two protections of presidents that reduce worry about hostile state courts. (1) Cong can by law regulate state court suits against presidents. (2) Any oppressive state court order against a president can be reviewed by the US Sup Ct
4) By immediate review. Civil suits against presidents will be rare enough that this will not be unduly burdensome on US Sup Ct. If it becomes so, Congress can by law regulate - including by removing all such state suits to federal court. Congress has not done so.
5) Thus the presumption of Clinton v Jones remains: it should be presumed that presidents are subject to the same legal process unless shown to be incompatible with executive duties. No such showing -- as yet -- in the Zervos litigation against Trump
6) Disclosure: I argued Clinton v Jones for the United States, as acting Solicitor General, arguing that all civil suits against a president should be postponed until he was no longer in office. We lost: 9-0.
