Civil Law: Immunity of President in Civil Suits

CIVIL LAW
AML
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

CIVIL LAW
Question 1
The central issue in both the cases i.e. Clinton v Jones and Nixon v Fitzgerald was with
regards to extension of immunity to President in civil suit. However, there were significant
differences between the circumstances of the two cases which eventually led to differing
decisions being pronounced by the Supreme court. With regards to Clinton v Jones, a case
was initiated against the sitting President with regards to an act carried out when Clinton did
not occupy the position of President but rather was governor of Arkansas. The Supreme
Court allowed the case to proceed and did not provide immunity to the President since there
was no evidence that proceeding with such a case would result in any adverse impact on the
discharge of duties by the President.
In contrast, Nixon v Fitzgerald involved a civil case with regards to conduct of President
during office time. In this case, the Supreme Court extended absolute immunity for civil
cases arising on actions taken by the President while in office. The honourable court
highlighted that the President is unlike other government servants as he is subject to several
checks and balances besides the scrutiny of press. Hence, granting immunity does not result
in unfettered powers to the President. I do not agree with the court’s decision in Nixon v
Fitzgerald as immunity from civil action is not recommended on the pretext that there are
other checks and balances. Immunity should be extended only when a given civil suit can
hamper a sitting President from discharging duties.
In relation to the various lawsuits against President Trump, it is likely that immunity would
not be extended for those cases where the underlying grievance relates to action before
assuming office. However, with regards to cases related to actions taken during presidency,
immunity may be extended especially if it interferes with Presidential duties discharge.
2