> nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
> And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial
> The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government” [as when] the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render [the President] “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.”
> The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
> Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case
Supreme Court history has no broader grant of immunity based on principles less definitive.
This is the big red flag for me. A court can't review whether the conduct was official. This seems like the court wants to remove the checks and balances between the government branches.
Yes, immunity for "official duties" sounds reasonable until you read all the justices own words and realize how purposely broad and far reaching these duties are.
> And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial
> The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government” [as when] the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render [the President] “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.”
> The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
> Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case
Supreme Court history has no broader grant of immunity based on principles less definitive.