Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.
So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.
I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?
No. Because they specifically said this is not the case.
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 under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.
They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations. The constitution outlines a handful of constitutional duties (such as pardoning) which are by definition the law not prosecutable. There’s a presumption of immunity for their official acts. Anything they do outside of official acts is not immune.
Nothing has really changed. It’s only made it more clear how difficult the process is to indict a president. The Fourth section of Article II still exists.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, let’s say, not for the first time ever, a president orders an assassination and congress wants to hold them accountable for this action. It will need to be determined if this act was part of their official duties. The issue SCOTUS has presented is that it’s very, very difficult for congress to obtain the motivation for such an act. Such a case would be dependent on the specific circumstances. I mean, if the president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, no one’s going to, nor have the ever, question that. If they order the assassination of a congressional leader, don’t imagine they’re going to get away with that.
Why do you imagine that a President wouldn’t get away with assassination of a Congressional leader? Say, for example, that Pres. Trump tells special ops forces that he has ironclad intelligence that Rep. Hakim Jeffries is a Chinese agent orchestrating an imminent attack on the U.S., and orders him killed on an overseas trip. That’s a legal order from the commander in chief, on the face of it. (I mean, the track record of the military refusing orders is extremely thin on the ground, and it won’t really matter if they install loyalists like Project 2025 calls for.) We’ve already established the precedent that the President has immense discretion to handle immediate threats.
And maybe it was a lie, but that’s irrelevant. He has absolute immunity in the exercise of his Article 2 duties. End of story. The only possible remedy is impeachment, and, well, who’s going to do that?
Trump was president for four years, enjoyed all of this immunity already, and not one politician was murdered. Pretty sure we’ll be alright.
There is a group of individuals who are attempting to gain control of Congress who would allow a certain person, if elected president carte blanche to do anything as “an official act”. A good portion buys the line that this former president declassified documents just by thinking so.
There is another set of 5 or 6 individuals that have happily shown they will prioritize their own beliefs and views over judicial principles their country had maintained over the last couple centuries.
We have already seen Congress try to hold a criminal President to account. It hasn’t worked yet and these rulings make it even less likely to.
They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations.
Usually i see strawmen making things sound worse than they are, but this is the complete opposite. Lawsuits is strawman, unfounded is strawman, accusations is strawman. This is for criminal cases, not civil, its actual prosecution, not accusations, and no requirement that they be unfounded for this immunity to apply. You are trying extremely hard to downplay this and cant have good intentions for this. Other justices have already claimed this includes political assassinations, and Trumps own legal team has already made the argument assassinating a political opponent can be an official act as president.
The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.
He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal for the president to accept a bribe to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn’t even be mentioned in court.
Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it’s an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it’s the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can’t even be used as evidence against him. It doesn’t matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren’t determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they’re determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn’t matter what he’s actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That’s perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn’t already immune. Now it can’t even be brought up in court.
In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There’s also a very worrying core power in article 2 about “ensuring laws are faithfully executed” that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence as it could apply to seemingly anything. Basically, as long as the president is using the levers of government to commit crimes, legal now.
Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn’t be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.
Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.
Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:
-
The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
-
The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:
The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:
-
Unofficial acts or personal behavior.
-
Criminal acts, (to include assassination).
The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.
People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.
That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.
It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29
The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties.
But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.
It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.
Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.
But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.
Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.
Excerpt from the ruling:
“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”
Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.
Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.
“Many experts” isn’t someone I can talk with or argue against. They’re just weasel words.
Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.
Doesn’t the ruling say that if the president takes a bribe to give someone an official appointment, that the person was appointed is not admissable as evidence in court?
That’s both new, and stupid. But what Roberts wrote in the majority ruling.
Edit: It also states that Trump putting pressure on Pence to change the election results may or may not be an official act, and whether it can be prosecuted is unclear (and whether it can be discussed in law needs an investigation and a ruling, rather than deciding it in a court of law).
Edit II: Romer below said it all far better than me. https://lemmy.autism.place/comment/224475
This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.
You’re right, the bribery talk is the logical extrapolation of the ruling that is laid out in the dissenting opinion. (and also in a minor dissent from one of the 6 judges who made the ruling.)
Edit: and unfortunately I live in a place where the US supreme Court website does not allow access so I can’t read the conveniently shared link. I have tried to find it online and read as much of it as I can. I would like to read the full thing, maybe you could share the image on a Lemmy instance and link to that? You could do the same with the dissenting opinion, too, for completion’s sake.
What I can find from the reports and snippets I can find is that the ruling that Roberts wrote talks about not only immunity for official acts, but not using official acts as evidence for prosecuting a US president. This then becomes the talk of bribery as making an appointment is very much an official act, and where that one conservative justice breaks line with the other five, as she maintains that official acts should be eligible as evidence when prosecuting unofficial acts.
Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.
Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.
The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.
The court concluded that the POTUS has presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts–those that fall within in the outer perimeter of his duties-- or acts is that are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
The court goes on to say that if the government wants to prosecute the POTUS for a crime, they have the burden of proving that the prosecution would "pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Such a ruling seriously hamstrings any effort to hold a criminal POTUS accountable since much of the evidence for criminal conduct is going to involve interactions with government officials.
It is just wrong to say that this ruling does not immunize the POTUS from criminal acts, that is exactly what it does. As it stands now, the president can order parts of the executive branch to engage in criminal behavior, like murdering political rivals or seizing voting machines, and he would be immune from prosecution because his actions (giving an order to executive officers) are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” All he would need to do, as the law stands now, is come up with some argument about how his prosecution for a crime interferes with executive function. An extremely low bar.
Also, this is new law. Most of the cites you give deal with civil immunity, not criminal immunity, this law immunizes the POTUS from crimes.
It’s one more piece of Project 2025.
Trump is the side-show. Stop getting distracted by his fat orange ass. The disorganized, played more golf and gave more bad speeches than any President before him is just a side show. Most of the executive branch jobs that go with the administration each election were left empty in 2016.
Project 2025 is an organized, focused Trump term where the machinery runs for him. Where the mechanics of what to do have been thought out and planned for since 2020. Where he can sit on a gold toilet and truly let other people handle the day to day.
And just sign it all with presidential immunity.
So unless cardiovascular disease does it’s fucking job in the next 4 months (yeah, that’s right, the self imposed I don’t want to deal with it time warp you’re in let you forget that it’s just 4 months away), and bad COVID comes back and hits the SCOTUS hard, it’ll be SCOTUS 2.0 for the entire executive branch of the government come 2025. And like a SCOTUS vote, that 2:1 vote in our entire government will be in favor of authoritarian Christian nationalism. That’s what the the SCOTUS vote on immunity is. It’s not about Trump. It’s about authoritarianism going forward.
High odds on Project 2025 because I know you fuckers under 40 won’t be voting in the numbers boomers or GenX do. You’ll stock up on the steam summer sale, maybe get a Costco crate of cool ranch, tuck in, and try to pretend it’s not happening instead.
Yea, it sucks, but the vote is basically Kamala or Trump. No or yes on Project 2025. And if project 2025 goes in, America really is dead and shit is going to get violent.
Not sure another play through of Mass Effect Legendary or BG3 is going to be able to block that out this time.
Good time to remind people that a higher proportion of millennials and gen z voted in mid-term elections than baby boomers or baby boomer babies (gen x) did at equivalent ages.
Millennials voted in the last presidential election at a rate that represents the highest level of youth electoral participation since the voting age was lowered to 18. Gen Z seems poised to do something similar, as this will be the first presidential election where a majority of Gen Z will be old enough to vote.
Additionally, gen x is the only generational cohort that voted LESS in the last mid term elections than the one before it, i.e., participation in elections declined for that cohort. I guess they were too busy… idk, doing whatever gen x does instead of voting.
This whole post is just one long “the kids are the problem because of their phones and video games,” but I’m pretty sure the most politically active youth generations in modern history aren’t ruining democracy by playing video games.
Anyway. Basically what I’m saying is: ok boomer. Oh well, whatever, nevermind, right?
Lol, not a boomer.
All I hear is I can’t vote for this asshole because Israel. Or, I’m not doing this (Trump and Biden) again.
And games are everyone these days. From boomers to high schoolers. Granted, I think the number of boomers is likely less than all the rest. I’m sure Steam is doing a hefty sales level from GenX on down.
And there absolutely is a time warp of avoidance in general. Even the media has less energy for the election crap of late.
Oh, bonus, sentencing for trump is being delayed until after the election.
Millenials are old now. We’re not “the youth”, we’re like mid-30s to early 40s.
Four years ago, when the last presidential election occurred, the millennial age range was 24-39. Beyond that, I’m comparing generational participation in elections at particular ages.
Further, not all of Gen Z will be of voting age for this election, so the youngest generational cohort where all members of that cohort are able to vote is still millennials, i.e., millennials are the youngest generation able to fully participate in elections.
I’m not saying millennials are all “young,” I’m saying that in terms of electoral participation statistics, they’re the youngest generation able to fully participate, and that compared to when Gen X and Boomers were going, Gen Z and Millennials participate (and have participated) at higher rates than the generations above them.
This is contrary to the subtext of the Boomer Lite (Gen X) poster to which I’m responding that implies younger generations are too busy distracting themselves with their phones and video games to participate in politics.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.
This isn’t true.
They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.
They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there’s a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.
Technically its the lower court but you know they will all be appealed and ultimately the supreme court will decide.
i know this is a dumb question, but why isn’t there some kind of law mandating equal amounts of SC Justices from each party? that way, they would HAVE to work together and one side can’t take control. i thought this country was sooo proud of our checks and balances, but it seems to me that they aren’t working.
As commander in chief, communicating with the military is definitely a core duty and absolutely immune. So is writing pardons. So you just order the military to crime in your name and pardon them afterward.
They also said that official acts cover just about everything when using presidential power, and you can’t take motive into account when determining if it’s an official act or not. Shooting a gun at someone himself. Not official sure. Ordering someone in the military to do it. You can’t ask why he did it, and if it was legal, why would immunity matter?
I don’t know why people care. Obama dronestriked an American citizen and nothing happened. Snowden revealed that we are all under mass surveillance and nothing happened. Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened. This ruling just reflects reality.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened.
Bit of a refresher as it’s so hard to keep all of the lies straight: Republicans claimed that an FBI informant said that Hunter Biden took a position on the board of Burisma, and the Bidens took a bribe, in return for Joe pressuring Ukraine to fire the government official investigating Burisma. Nobody can produce the evidence, and said government official wasn’t investigating Burisma, after all.
Pres. Trump threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless Zelenskyy dug up kompromat on Trump’s political opponents. He was impeached over it. So that happened.
You don’t think this series of events is indicative of corruption?
The CIA also censored references to Shokins book on twitter.
Unrelated but the same people censored the Hunter Biden laptop story and called it Russian disinfo during peak election season. It turned out to be true. 🤔
That is indeed a series of events. Did they ever come up with any evidence linking them in a causal way?
