
Held: A sitting President may be sued for his unofficial acts. Although Fitzgerald lends support to immunity for official acts, there is no support for immunity for unofficial acts. Since immunities are “grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor,” the immunity for official acts is rational. The fact that the judiciary’s exercise of power might place a burden on President, is not enough to make the action unconstitutional. Court held that to get that postponement, the President would have to show very good cause.
– Immunity is grounded in the “nature of the function performed [and] not the identity of the actors who perform it.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What was the holding in the Clinton v. Jones case?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.
What's Your Answer to "What was the holding in the Clinton v. Jones case?"