Which case established that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for acts pre-dating or unrelated to official duties?

• A. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
• B. Clinton v. Jones (1997)
• C. Trump v. Vance (2020)
• D. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer: (B)

The key idea is presidential immunity and when it applies to civil lawsuits. Clinton v. Jones holds that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for acts that occurred before taking office or that are unrelated to official presidential duties. In that case, the Court allowed Paula Jones’s civil suit to proceed against President Clinton, saying a private civil action can go forward without waiting for the presidency to end, because immunity isn’t a blanket shield for all private conduct—only for official acts performed in the president’s official capacity.

This shows a distinction from absolute immunity for official acts established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which protects a president from liability for actions taken as part of official duties. It also contrasts with cases like Marbury v. Madison (judicial review) and Trump v. Vance (limits of presidential immunity in different contexts). So Clinton v. Jones is the case that clarifies that acts pre-dating or unrelated to official duties are not protected from civil litigation.