Ruling Fails to Slow Clinton Sex Harassment Case

WASHINGTON — In a potential setback for President Clinton, a federal appeals court refused Wednesday to extend a deadline for his lawyers to appeal a ruling in the sexual harassment case against him, creating a chance that Clinton will have to answer questions about the explosive allegations before the November election.

Next week, Clinton’s lawyers will submit a final appeal to the Supreme Court. They will ask the justices to hear their case and rule that a president cannot be forced to answer to a civil suit while he is in office.

Lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who claims that then-Gov. Clinton once crudely propositioned her, plan to ask the high court to dismiss the appeal.

If the justices move quickly and reject the appeal by late June, Clinton could be ordered within a few months to answer questions under oath about his actions.

“We absolutely think that the matter” of Clinton’s claim of immunity will be taken up in the Supreme Court by June 21, said Joseph Cammarata, a Fairfax, Va., lawyer who represents Jones.

That date is crucial, he said, because it is the justices’ last regularly scheduled conference before their summer recess.

A lawyer for Clinton agreed that “theoretically, it’s possible” the court will act quickly and reject the immunity claim by late June.

However, Clinton’s legal team is hopeful that the high court will agree to rule on the profoundly important issue of a president’s immunity from civil suits, or at least delay action on the appeal until October.

Two years ago, Jones filed her sexual harassment claim and sought $700,000 in damages. She said that she was offended not just by Clinton’s crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel room but by his aides who had labeled her a liar.

The president refused comment on the allegations but Robert S. Bennett, his lawyer, called them “tabloid trash.”

“Quite simply, the incident did not occur,” Bennett said.

Clinton’s lawyers have sought to delay action in the case by arguing that a sitting president is immune from civil suits.

In 1982, the Supreme Court said that a president cannot be sued over his “official acts.”

But in January, a federal appeals court in St. Louis said that a sitting president is not immune from suits over his actions as a private citizen.

“The president, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all members of our society,” wrote Judge Pasco M. Bowman of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Clinton’s lawyers appealed that 2-1 ruling to the full appeals court, but without success. They then asked for an extension of time to research the immunity issue and to file their appeal.

That request was rejected Wednesday. The lawyers must file their high court appeal by May 16.

Under the court’s rules, Jones’ lawyers have 30 days to respond to the appeal. But to speed up the process, they said, they will respond within about a week.

“Enough is enough,” Cammarata said. “The president’s request for a delay was a transparent attempt to use judicial cover for political purposes.”

In a statement issued by her lawyer’s office, Jones said that she was “elated” by the court’s refusal to extend the deadlines.

“It looks like my case can finally move forward after so long an effort by Mr. Clinton to avoid it,” she said.