Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal.
This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.
What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling.
Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case".
The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn't challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.
It's strange that they haven't delegated to Congress to write a law specifying which acts are and aren't official, and that without said law, no acts the president does that aren't specifically listed in the constitution are official
That would be much more in line with the courts other decisions than asking a court to write the law
Here is a legal brain twister to chew on. Trump probably could not have been charged with insurrection…because he could not overthrow himself. On January 6, he was still the president and represented the government.
Disruption of a government proceeding is more appropriate. Had Trump did what he did on January 21st, 2021…you might have a case for insurrection.
But if one overthrows the government via official acts, then one enjoys absolute immunity.
For example, the president can deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists and then in an official capacity order them to be assassinated by the SEALs. He can grant blanket pardons to everyone involved while he himself enjoys absolute immunity for his official acts.
The Senate will never be able to impeach or convict you when you’ve killed off those who would do it.
This ruling makes the president a temporary dictator, and it’s reeeeeally easy to go from a temporary dictator to a lifetime one.
A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.[1]
If by "Everyone" you mean at least one of the sitting supreme court justices. What is considered "official duty" is not clearly defined, and will certainly be twisted to include things that seem like they obviously shouldnt be considered "official".
But if a president claims that a surgical strike to eliminate an "enemy of the country" was within their prerogative, then yes, a president can murder somebody without fear of consequences.
This is the biggest impact of this opinion IMO. The president can do basically any supervisory action within the executive branch for any reason without risk of criminal liability. His ability to direct federal agencies is only limited by the supply of palatable lackeys.
With regards to (b)(ii)(3), i.e. Trump's attempt to influence non-federal officials to select fake electors...
>> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. Pp. 24–28.
Which seems a key window for the lower court to send the case back up.
Trump attempted to influence non-federal election officials.
Trump had no Presidential authority to do so. (Elections being run by the states)
Ergo, that was not an official act.
Granted, the special counsel would have to prove that without using the Presidential personal notes... but it's still a pretty clear path given the non-Presidential documentation all the conspirators kept.
And it does make sense by the Supreme Court's reasoning: you can't restrict the President from running the executive branch, but you can hold him accountable for the things he does outside of the executive branch, which critically includes elections themselves.
> but it's still a pretty clear path given the non-Presidential documentation all the conspirators kept.
it's my understanding that they can't use testimony or notes from advisors et. al. which is troubling since they are or can be the co-conspirators.
> Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. *Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.*
My reading was they can't use testimony or notes from advisors in the executive branch who are helping the President perform an official act.
I.e. anything that would have a chilling effect on the President's ability to direct the executive
Outside of that, e.g. campaign staff, is a different matter. And I believe there's already a distinction between government employees and campaign employees (probably for campaign finance reasons).
Which seems reasonable on its face, but it faces another issue. Now, what defines an 'official' act as president. And how loose do we want to play with those terms. If we want to play slippery slope, which is what the court seems to like to do, then something that should be illegal but can be deemed an official act is a President ordering the military to keep voters out of voting locations because they have a 'tip off' from someone in national security that a potential terrorist attack may or may not happen at voting locations. Right, we can end up in a situation where the president can find any loose way to justify anything they do.
That is where probably the blanket immunity comes into play. Its not definitionally blanket immunity, but it might as well functionally be blanket immunity.
I mean that’s the only way anything gets to the Supreme Court. “Court of review, not if first view” and all that. They’re not structurally or practically equipped to preside over the early phases of questions like that
This just sounds like a convenient shield/excuse (not by you specifically) for them to drop grenades into our society without any consideration for the damage when it’s convenient for their politics. They have absolutely had no issue expanding the discussions/interpretation when the 6-3 partisan majority gets to side with general GOP values and policy aims. How else could we explain Thomas bringing up Obergfell during Dobbs?
"The president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal."
"Such a problem this thing called 'law' that people made, doesn't let me govern. If only i could do everything i want without having to concern myself with such petty things."
I can't believe this is the type of argument people are using to defend this abysmal situation. The US should have invested more in teaching kids about fascism and identifying its signs. Unbelievable that people are so blind to what's going on.
It is not de jure blanket immunity, but when terminologies like "official acts" aren't clearly defined, and have an innate bias for slippery-sloping - given the nature of the President's office - it becomes de-facto blanket immunity.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.
The problem isn't them. We just not too long ago have a court case that questioned whether the President is considered an "officer of the United States." The unfortunate part of law is, half of law is arguing about what 'is' is.
So its not necessarily that words don't have meaning. Its more of, the words can change meaning.
Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. Now, they completely invent criminal immunity out of thin air (which btw was never necessary in the last 250 years until we had a criminal president), when the intent of the drafters to never elevate any person above the law was crystal clear.
The Roberts court is just arbitrarily choosing whatever justification they happen to like for any given case to push an extremist agenda.
No, because rights are not granted by the constitution, rights are self-evident and natural, and people retain them without them being explicitly enumerated.
The constitution merely enumerates certain rights where the founders wanted to be extra clear that those things were rights, but it is not a limiting document.
The 9th amendment states this explicitly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
A majority on the supreme court seem willing to bend reasonable definitions backward to get whatever they want. Second amendment 'right' to (non-militia) personal firearms for example.
Thats about the worst example one can give, given that it has broadly been considered to allow [personal firearms] since the start of the country. The grammar isn't even confusing.
[edit] removed the word militia to avoid confusion between historic and modern definition.
At the time the rationale for a right was frequently included in the text, just as a modern reading of the right implies it is being used as an explanatory clause. The entire concept was that there would be no governmental army and in times of need, citizens would be able to use their arms and organize for mutual defense. In this context, "Militia" is synonymous with an decentralized armed citizenry without government oversight. The clause provides this rationale and coveys a sentiment against a standing army. here are what some state constitutions had to say about gun ownership, prior to the bill of rights.
Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:
>That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
>The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
I pulled the quotes from this link, which has more text and discussion.
It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a document listing rights and protections for individual citizens. Furthermore, the statements already draw a distinction between the people and an army controlled by the government.
Ordering the murder of someone is their official duty as commander in chief of the military. The only thing they have to do is say they feel that a person was a threat to national security.
Given your example, under this decision, the President could be charged, and the courts would have to decide whether it was an official act. Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official. Was it the murder of a terrorist planning an attack? Probably official. Is there some grey area in the middle that will really hard to decide? Probably. This was a moderate decision that defers making broad rules and lets courts decide on a case by case basis.
> Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official.
They could argue that if she came forward it would reduce American's faith in their government leading to instability or that it would provide an opportunity for our enemies to use the scandal to undermine national interests, or they could argue that the "vindictive ex" might expose secrets that she learned while in proximity to government officials, or even just lie and say she stole the secrets.
The president doesn't even have to murder her. The president can now disappear people in the middle of the night and ship them off to gitmo under the banner of "national security" and not tell anyone about it, and even if someone leaked that the cells in Guantanamo Bay were filling up even the supreme court wouldn't be allowed to see the evidence. Any trial at all would take place in secret military courts closed to the public.
This was the farthest thing from a moderate decision. It puts the president literally above the law. There is zero need for this kind of immunity when the actions a president takes while in office are legal, which is how we've gone nearly 250 years without ever once needing it.
They could argue that if she came forward it would reduce American's faith in their government leading to instability
I think you've been so riled up that you are worried over impossibilities. Judge Chutkan gets a pass at interpreting this, wait and see what she says about it. The kind of arguments you are suggest are wildly implausible and will never pass muster in any court, regardless of appointee. It explicitly isn't the intent of the decision.
It's certainly true that all we can do today is speculate about how this new immunity will be abused, but I suspect we'll find out a lot sooner than we'd like.
Its fair to approach arguments like this with skepticism because they sound so ridiculous, but I think they're lent more credence when referenced as a concern in the dissent from the Supreme Court itself. Sotomayor said: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."
If you want to say she is worried over impossibilities too that's fine but based on the facts of the case and how it was ruled, I don't see why its not a realistic concern.
> Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official.
Why obviously? If mistress is causing "harm" to other official actions would it not be official duty to prevent this harm? You and I may not buy such a defence but a sympathetic audience of allies?
Anwar al-Awlaki. An American who was executed on the orders of the president who claimed he was a threat to national security, and faced no judicial consequences for.
That's not quite it. There's absolute ('blanket') immunity for acts that exclusively reserved for the president (vetos, pardons, etc.). There's presumptive immunity for other 'official acts', but that doesn't preclude the possibility that some official acts could be deemed or made illegal. There's no immunity for unofficial acts, but there's a pretty fine needle to thread in to determine an action is unofficial (if it's not 'palpably' so).
Say a president builds up an "official" retirement fund for himself (and friends) by holding a "pardon auction" with top bidding few dozen criminals being released each year during a presidential term. Is this an "official" action covered by this immunity ruling? Their justification could be it keeps taxes lower, etc.
No, the bribery would not be an official act, see footnote 3 of the opinion:
> in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety
Admittedly it’s a bit contradictory, but still helpful I think. The pardon is the official act, and the president is immune from criminal prosecution (and legislation) of the form “it was a crime to give that pardon” without further qualification. The prosecutor cannot compel presidential records or testimony. All the other tools are still available to the prosecutor and the unofficial act of accepting a bribe is still a crime.
This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.