The United States Supreme Court just ruled in a bombshell 6-3 decision that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” However, the nation’s highest court determined that presidents can still be found criminally liable for unofficial acts.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the Court determined. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.”
The court sent the case back down to a lower court, whereas the justices did not apply the decision to the prosecution against former President Donald Trump and his alleged actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the Court added.
“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,” the Court concluded. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”
The case stems from the Special Counsel Jack Smith case against Trump, which accuses the former president of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee has pled not guilty to all charges.
“Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” Alito asked, highlighting the implications of no immunity for presidents.
He added, “Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail.”
However, Biden-appointed Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson questioned whether removing the potential for criminal liability would remove the disincentive toward criminal activity. She asked if the “potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?”
Brown continued, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.” According to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision will “have huge implications for the presidency.”
"*" indicates required fields