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

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

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how presidential immunity works in civil cases. Clinton v. Jones holds that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for private acts that pre-date or are unrelated to official duties. The Court said the Constitution does not grant the president blanket civil-liability immunity, and a private civil suit can proceed while adjusting procedures so the presidency’s duties aren’t unduly hindered. This is why a claim like Paula Jones’s sexual harassment suit could move forward in court even though Clinton was in office.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, by contrast, grants immunity for acts within the scope of official duties, not acts pre-dating or unrelated to those duties, so it isn’t the right fit here. Trump v. Vance concerns whether a sitting president can be investigated by state authorities, not about civil liability for private actions. Marbury v. Madison is about judicial review and the structure of the courts, not presidential immunity.