Charles E. Grassley: “for the first time, a President of the United States has been sued for acts occurring before he assumed office. Press…”

“for the first time, a President of the United States has been sued for acts occurring before he assumed office. Press accounts suggest that when he responds to the lawsuit, the President will argue that he is immune from suit. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say whether the law grants the President immunity in this situation. I do know that two lawyers will, no doubt, have two different opinions in this matter, even after reading the same case law. Whatever the President may legally be able to claim, I hope that he will not rely on an immunity argument. No one, including the President, is above the law. Consider the hypothetical situation that Prof. Charles Fried has raised. Suppose that George Bush, before he was President, had run over a swimmer in his speedboat. What would be the reaction if the swimmer's widow could not bring suit to recover for the injuries and loss of support? Even if her suit were delayed until the President left office, the personal suffering would be terrible. It would be inappropriate to delay the lawsuit until an undetermined time. Statutes of limitations exist to make sure that the memories of witnesses are fresh. Delaying the case would only serve to diminish the memories of the parties, and harm the ability to determine the truth. Although the President's efforts to perform his job might be harmed by the lawsuit going forward, all other civil litigants face that prospect as a matter of course.”