- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,546
- Reaction score
- 29,810
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Welcome to the July 1, 2024 edition of "Legal Studies with Steeltime." Today we focus on the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling holding that the President of the United States is immune from prosecution for any crimes in the course of his or her official duties. The court's ruling explains that the immunity stems from the separation of powers doctrine and the very long-established rule that the President, the holder of the Executive Branch, must be free to act as he or she feels appropriate in exercising such authority, without fear of civil or criminal prosecution for exercising such Constitutional powers. This review was necessitated by the United States District Court's determination that President Trump had no immunity for any of the actions alleged by the state of Georgia in its indictment of Trump for conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court explained that the District Court improperly rejected the immunity argument with no actual analysis. The Supreme Court persuasively noted that the process is the punishment for a lot of the allegations against President Trump: "Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32. Vulnerability “‘to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute.’” Id., at 752–753, n. 32.
The Supreme Court explained that a President has absolute immunity for any actions that are within the "core functions" of the Executive branch and held that several of the allegations in the Georgia indictment fall under this absolute immunity:
The immunity applies without limit to the President's "conclusive and preclusive authority," including recognizing foreign nations, prosecutions by the Justice Dept., executing wartime powers and decisions as Commander-in-Chief, and hiring-and-firing personnel under the President's authority, including members of the Cabinet. The allegations in the indictment that Trump threatened to fire the head of the DOJ or demanded investigation of voter fraud - two of the purported "illegal activities" identified in the indictment - are therefore subject to absolute immunity.
The disagreement on the particular allegations goes to the extent to which immunity applies for actions that are not per se within the Executive Branch's Constitutional authority but instead involve actions that are Executive in nature but not necessarily solely the province of the President. Such actions include matters where the President and Congress share power (appointment of Federal judges, representing the position of the United States on domestic and foreign matters, demanding action by the Justice Dept. favorable to the President, ordering Executive branch officials to act in a way beneficial to the President, making statements to the public about important issues including those involving contested elections), then the question is whether or not the action falls under the "outer reaches" of Executive function.
The Supreme Court suggested that a number of specific actions identified in the indictment - the demand that Pence intercede in the electoral process, tweets to the public about the protest - are almost certainly immune from prosecution but need to be investigated by the District Court before appellate review. In all likelihood, these allegations are presumptively within the "outer reaches" of Executive function and thereby immune.
The District Court will be tasked with reviewing the allegations under the Supreme Court's directives, keeping in mind that presumptions for immunity weigh in favor of finding immunity to preserve the Executive Branch's ability to do its job without fear of being hunted down and prosecuted later by a political adversary for official actions. The Supreme Court addressed the teeth-gnashing and screams of outrage by the dissent as well:
Here is the complete decision. It is pretty easy to understand - and should give Biden some solace in the fact he cannot be prosecuted for murdering 10 innocent Afghani civilians, including 7 children, in some inane, idiotic effort to divert attention from his criminal misconduct in the Afghanistan withdrawal.
The Supreme Court explained that the District Court improperly rejected the immunity argument with no actual analysis. The Supreme Court persuasively noted that the process is the punishment for a lot of the allegations against President Trump: "Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32. Vulnerability “‘to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute.’” Id., at 752–753, n. 32.
The Supreme Court explained that a President has absolute immunity for any actions that are within the "core functions" of the Executive branch and held that several of the allegations in the Georgia indictment fall under this absolute immunity:
The immunity applies without limit to the President's "conclusive and preclusive authority," including recognizing foreign nations, prosecutions by the Justice Dept., executing wartime powers and decisions as Commander-in-Chief, and hiring-and-firing personnel under the President's authority, including members of the Cabinet. The allegations in the indictment that Trump threatened to fire the head of the DOJ or demanded investigation of voter fraud - two of the purported "illegal activities" identified in the indictment - are therefore subject to absolute immunity.
The disagreement on the particular allegations goes to the extent to which immunity applies for actions that are not per se within the Executive Branch's Constitutional authority but instead involve actions that are Executive in nature but not necessarily solely the province of the President. Such actions include matters where the President and Congress share power (appointment of Federal judges, representing the position of the United States on domestic and foreign matters, demanding action by the Justice Dept. favorable to the President, ordering Executive branch officials to act in a way beneficial to the President, making statements to the public about important issues including those involving contested elections), then the question is whether or not the action falls under the "outer reaches" of Executive function.
The Supreme Court suggested that a number of specific actions identified in the indictment - the demand that Pence intercede in the electoral process, tweets to the public about the protest - are almost certainly immune from prosecution but need to be investigated by the District Court before appellate review. In all likelihood, these allegations are presumptively within the "outer reaches" of Executive function and thereby immune.
The District Court will be tasked with reviewing the allegations under the Supreme Court's directives, keeping in mind that presumptions for immunity weigh in favor of finding immunity to preserve the Executive Branch's ability to do its job without fear of being hunted down and prosecuted later by a political adversary for official actions. The Supreme Court addressed the teeth-gnashing and screams of outrage by the dissent as well:
Here is the complete decision. It is pretty easy to understand - and should give Biden some solace in the fact he cannot be prosecuted for murdering 10 innocent Afghani civilians, including 7 children, in some inane, idiotic effort to divert attention from his criminal misconduct in the Afghanistan withdrawal.
