I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it.
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
EDIT: OP left a reply to this comment that I think was unfairly flagged, visible here with showdead:
In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular.
This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act as president.
Of course, if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.
Another topic that hasn't come up quite as much is the fact that this is an immunity proposition, not a defense. What SCOTUS is saying is that we aren't permitted to even ask if the president is reasonable in his beliefs; any trial on the merits is completely and totally foreclosed--that's what immunity means. Just a few days ago, SCOTUS decided that it's absolutely important that administrative law procedures need to go through the step of being heard by a jury trial, and now here it's saying that it's absolutely important that the president never be burdened by the prospect of having to have a jury weigh their actions.
It's just... really galling that SCOTUS would decide that the constitution requires that the president be a king above the law, exactly the sort of thing that England fought a few civil wars over before the US even sought its independence.
No, the supreme court just gave the president immunity for exactly this. This exact scenario is quoted upthread:
> Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
It's curious because this would also seem to legalize the Watergate scandal and Nixon's famous line "if the president does it, its not illegal".
Maybe.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judic...
And of course, if it's something that the Supreme Court wants a president to face consequences for for partisan reasons, they can simply use their majority to say that whatever they didn't like was not an official act.
People get very judgemental when Putin assassinates defectors, but when Obama does it it's ok?
What does that even mean if it's impossible to prosecute the President? What does that even mean?
If the president air strikes people and uses drone strikes using whatever system congress has said that makes that "okay" then he cannot be prosecuted for murder while authorizing and ultimately conducting drone strikes (in most circumstances).
However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way.
Meaning, if the president shoots a random bystander on the street they can be charged with murder. If the president orders a military strike as part of an official operation and done through proper channels, they can't be charged if it later turns out the intel was bad or the strike went wrong in some way.
Or, if the President uses his powers to assassinate a governor -- again, explicitly not an official act, as the president has no authority over state elections.
If anyone bothered to read the constitution, it clearly lays out the sorts of things that could be construed as official, and the sorts of things that are not. The President does not have unlimited authority. His scope of authority is rather small, even if several important things fall under it. Part of the problem is the pervasive idea in American electoral politics that the president has some sort of power to 'promise' various laws and such. It's so silly since no President can possibly do that.
Cleary, clearly this was a partisan decision. They can't just say "We Have a King Now", so they dressed up just enough of a reasonable interpretation to be able to kill this particular prosecution, while allowing themselves wiggle room to prosecute the kings they don't like. They aren't really trying to uncork executive abuse, they really hope it doesn't happen. But they want Trump not to be prosecuted, and put their fingers on the scale with what they hope is just enough pressure. We'll see.
On the one hand: if you are president and you authorize the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to get Japan to surrender without further loss of American life, you won't later be prosecuted for war crimes when your political rival comes into power.
On the other hand, if you are president and you murder a Japanese person you see on the street when going for a stroll outside the white house, you can be prosecuted for that.
> the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially?”
Trump murdering his business partner at a dinner because they had a fallout is pretty clearly unofficial, while Trump ordering assassination of the Tyrant of Ruritania is official, albeit probably immoral and/or dangerous to boot.
Of course the grey zone between those two poles is going to be pretty wide.
It seems a lot is assumed in that one sentence. Did he give an order that said 'Overthrow!"? If not, what, exactly, did he do? And this may be a part of the issue. Everything is a hyperbole wrapped in performative anger.
In other words, can you name an action that you deem unofficial that would qualify as 'overthrow"?
The silence from the people who once decried the 'activist court' now that it's an ally of the slow fascist transformation is deafening.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
So the hypo cannot be trivially resolved by treating the kill order as an unofficial act. Instead, for the president to be _criminally_ liable, I think (as not-a-lawyer) it has to be resolved by piercing 'presumptive immunity' for actions beyond the core powers. While there's a needle to thread, it feels disturbingly narrow.
That seems like the majority opinion agrees.
It'd be hard to argue that commanding the military wasn't an official act of the president under the Constitution even if that command was to Navy's Seal Team 6 asking them to assassinate a political rival for reasons of "national security"
this act is still in effect.
I could see the argument being made that yes, that's an official act. You'd have to argue why it's okay for a President to abandon their oath of office.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Par...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-...
EDIT: This ruling probably retroactively clears Nixon from Watergate. It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him.
I’m also skeptical of her dissent strategy; dissents are key places to limit a ruling. Why not just say what seems crystal clear and say ‘nothing about this ruling should be taken to mean calling something an official act as a fig leaf for criminality is okay; it’s not okay to assassinate a political rival ever.’ Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling. I dislike this approach in the extreme; it feels like grandstanding and complaining about the Roberts court rather than engaging with her own substantial influence.
For the Nixon tapes, today's SCOTUS ruling would require the prosecution to convince a federal judge before trial that the value of the tapes in the criminal case greatly outweighs the general immunity from oversight presidents have when consulting advisors. Difficult, but not impossible. It probably would've given the same result in the Nixon case, because Nixon didn't use presidential powers to carry out the plan (just the cover up in the Saturday Night Massacre stage). If he had used an active FBI agent instead of a former one to place the bugs, then it might have been OK, according to today's ruling (see III.B.1 which grants immunity to Trump for his sham investigations using the DOJ).
>What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as?
The President is the head of the military and can direct them without consulting Congress. Congress is free to impeach him if he does so without authorization, but he'd have absolute immunity because this is a core power of the office.
Maybe you meant, "What reason could there be to justify that killing in the name of the nation or its people?" In which case, the President would never have to say. His motives are not even allowed to be investigated. See III.A from the majority opinion:
>In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect.
yeah it seems like a traditional FUD strategy, i would expect Supreme Court justices to be more analytical and sober than that.
If a member of Seal Team 6 did assassinate a political rival of the President, would they also be immune from prosecution? To me it sounds like the kind of order they would refuse.
Think about how the Executive handled rival political movements in the past. The Black Panthers. CPUSA circa 1919. Now imagine Fred Hampton had been running for President when he was killed.
The line between "political opponent" and "enemy of the State" can become pretty blurry. This ruling gives the Executive broad power to act in its own interests when it can claim the line is blurry.
Everyone thinks lines don't get crossed, until they do.
They’ve also made much of the fact that the presidential authority to pardon is constitutionally unreviewable, so even if the president orders someone to commit a crime, he can pardon them preemptively. His appointment power is similarly in the constitution, so he can also fire and replace them until he finds someone willing to do it.
Are we really left with ‘if the president were to issue illegal orders to his staff, Congress would definitely impeach him’?
This is an opinion that might make sense if we were being asked if a president ordering drone assassinations makes him liable for murder. In the context of the president trying to instigate a coup for not being reelected, to the point that his own government is threatening mass resignation if he carries it out in protest at the sheer unconstitutionality of it... this is the kind of question that almost begs SCOTUS to say "make a narrow ruling as to whether or not this specific instance is permissible" and SCOTUS decides instead to make a grand, sweeping proclamation for all ages and circumstances and neglect to look at the specific facts in this case and leave it unanswered here.
Roberts, let this case be your Dred Scott decision, your Korematsu decision. You've certainly done more to torpedo the credibility of the court in one decision than any other case in the past few decades... and that's saying quite a bit.
But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...
> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself...
Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...
> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. ... Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine.
Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.
(I can't tell whether the OP was confused by this, but the linked Tweet has enough people being confused by it to make it worth mentioning.)
The majority opinion even had the gall to call the prosecutions "hasty" when we're largely talking about things that happened in 2021.
But this decision is so much worse than many (myself included) expected. Not only is there blanket immunity for "official acts" but there is presumptive innocence for anything on the peripherey. Even worse, if something is a statutory or constitutional power of the office of President, the reason does not matter. The reason can't even be considered in deciding if something is an "official act" or not.
So the president has the right to issue pardons with ultimate discretion. If they want to sell pardons, now they can. Why? Because the reason this "official act" happened is irrelevant. That's what the Court decided.
Same for selling judgeships or presidential appointments.
We already have the donor-to-ambassador pipeline [2]. Now we don't even need the ruse of it being a donation. The President can simply sell ambassadorships for personal gain.
That's what this decision did.
[1]: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7...
[2]: https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/new-campaign-legal-...
In the military, we have the UCMJ that allows us to prosecute those military personnel that issue illegal orders. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is a civilian, so the UCMJ doesn't apply. I always thought he would be charged under criminal law in that case, but it seems that this ruling precludes that.
"But not for this! This would be clearly corrupt!" you may say, but the decision addresses that as well; the President's motive for the "official act" cannot be introduced as evidence!
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
Motive can be used to defeat the presumptive immunity for an official act.
What does the judge who reviews the case think?
That's literally the only thing preventing that scenario from playing out.
To the contrary -- this is an explicit example that came up during oral arguments, where a Trump lawyer specifically claimed that indeed, Trump could not be convicted criminally of this (unless he had first been impeached and convicted).
Nowhere in the majority opinion does it try to draw some kind of line against this. And indeed, the President is constitutionally "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and the opinion states this authority is "conclusive and preclusive".
Quite simply, according to this decision, anything the president commands the Navy to do, including a Navy Seal, is an official act because it a power explicitly granted by the constitution, and thus immune from prosecution.
To repeat: this specific scenario was brought up during oral arguments, indeed as one of the main arguments that was also widely reported. This is not a far-flung wacko example Sotomayor came up with herself -- it's the very heart of the case. The fact that the opinion does not even attempt to explain why this would still be considered criminal, and the fact the Sotomayor is confirming why it would be allowed, is not a misreading or a mistake. It is clearly intentional and genuinely scary.
Nice bit of jujitsu by Trump's defense. Make an outrageous claim so out of bounds that any one who quotes you sounds like a lunatic.
Surely the critic is exagerating, lying, offbase, or... ? No one would seriously claim they could murder some rando on Fifth Ave in broad daylight and get away with it. Right?!
Results in opponents discrediting themselves.
Brilliant.
> 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.”
I’m hoping that the assassination of a political rival would be “palpably beyond” the authority of the President.
SCOTUS explicitly says you cannot question the motive of a presidents actions when making a determination for what is protected and not.
This seems like a path towards civil war.
[edit] Thinking about a way out of this mess. Here's a proposal.
Biden asserts that he has this right, writes up a new amendment taking the right away, gives a date by which he will take action if the amendment has not been passed.
(Then he should probably resign for effectively blackmailing the legislative branch)
Is it permissible to disobey an order that you merely believe is unconstitutional? What happens when your superior asserts that it is constitutional?
> I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it.
Wouldn't something like that be essentially an illegal order and therefore invalid? And/or something that would be trivial to fix (e.g pass a law saying it's not within the president's official powers to order a domestic assassination)?
Because "official actions" doesn't mean "every action" or "every action attempting to use presidential authority," I think it has to be an action exercising the constitutional powers of the president.
For instance: for the purposes of simplicity, lets assume all legislation authorizing the president to take military action without prior congressional approval has been repealed, and the congress has not declared war on anyone or authorized the use of military force in any circumstances. The president then orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a waitress who spilled coffee on him, ruining his lucky suit. That would be illegal order since the president does not have constitutional authority to take such action on his own without authorization by congress and that authorization does not exist.
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seal-team-6-assassination-hy...
The dissent notes that official acts as a defense is already A Thing. What’s changed is upgrading that to immunity, which means they can’t be tried in the first place, no defense needed. The law is simply held not to apply.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-t...
Yes.
FYI, the court is not saying Trump is granting Trump blanket immunity. For three of the counts the court is saying Trump is probably not immune but prosecutors need to clarify that his acts were outside of the duties of his office.
> Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
