Please, for Gods sake, just answer yes or no. I’m still getting contradictory answers and I’m going kinda sick of it.
Do you mean to a former president? The sitting president would be the president himself. Or are you referring to something like self-pardoning?
Since you’re asking for a straight yes or no, it’s basically “no,” but the more thorough answer would be “no, but it’s complicated.”
Yes, I mean the president himself. The man currently in charge. Joe Biden in this case. As of right now, does Joe Biden have any new or strengthened powers, or do Republicans have less ability to act against him, as compared to two weeks ago?
Is that complicated too, or do I further need to repeat that I am not asking about presidents who are not actually in power?
My (not-a-lawyer, not-a-Constitutionalist) understanding is that basically nothing has changed. It has always been understood that you can’t criminally prosecute a president for “official actions” - doing something that’s considered within the scope of his duties, such as waging war on an enemy nation or issuing an executive order permitting oil drilling on federal land. The only real/legal check on a president’s power in doing such things is impeachment and removal-from-office itself. That was always the case before this Supreme Court decision and remains so afterwards. The Supreme Court merely formalized this as a rule.
However, “unofficial” deeds remain totally prosecutable. If a president tries to pay the mafia to take out some political rival or embezzled a lot of money while in the White House, he could definitely face criminal charges for it. That, too, was always the case before this Supreme Court decision - and the Court merely formalized it.
So, to answer your question - no, nothing has changed. What’s “official” is protected, and what’s “unofficial” is unprotected.
The problem, though, of course, is that it is going to become maddeningly difficult to define what exactly is and isn’t “official.” It may take decades of litigation to sort that one out properly.
I don’t think that is the case. Rather – as recently as 1973 – the Department of Justice decided as a matter of internal policy that it would not prosecute sitting presidents.
Cite: Wikipedia article on presidential immunity
I have to disagree based on the analysis of Legal Eagle. His video is outstanding. The fact is that this ruling has not been tested to see how far it goes in practice, but based on the reading of the ruling the power of the president has been greatly expanded especially since what has been sliced out by SCOTUS as unofficial is basically nothing since any prosecution that has any danger of impeding the function of the executive give the president presumptive immunity (which by the way is based on a single line from The Federalist 70 so on basically no fundamental ground at all). It is hard to imagine any prosecution that does not do this making even arguing something is an unofficial act is a very uphill battle. Keep in mind, that official acts cannot be used as evidence against the president in a prosecution of an unofficial act. Hence, based on a reading of the ruling and considering how it would be likely to function in practice, it will be essentially impossible to prosecute a former president.
Now, how will this play out? The Legal Eagle points out that even if you only consider the presidents core powers would fall unquestionably official acts you get into so scary ground. The president has the power to remove employees from the federal service. Can he now remove them via poisoning? Based on the SCOTUS ruling, it seems like yes. The president can absolutely order the military. Could the president order a drone strike on a political rival? Based on the ruling, the answer is yes. And keep in mind, that the notion that the military will reject the order because it is an illegal order … well, no it isn’t an illegal order anymore is it (this is actually unclear it might still be an illegal order)? And besides, the president can court martial anybody that refuses the order and replace them with somebody that will. The president can definite now sell pardons. Sell appointments. The president can direct the DoJ to prosecute his ‘enemies’. All with no fear of being prosecuted.
So let’s say the president does something like that. It is possible that the case would reach SCOTUS and they would say “Well… we didn’t mean you could murder people.” Fine. They might overturn it, they have that power. But based on the ruling and not some future overturning, the president is now, in effect, above the law.
I highly suggest watching Legal Eagle’s video. He calls it one of the top five worst decisions by SCOTUS. I absolutely agree and it will almost certainly be overturned some day. But until that day, the USA has a king.
There’s also the question, do you mean what the President can do, or what he may do? Before this decision, it was already possible for the President to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. Just like it was possible for anyone else to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. The question is just what happens afterwards. In most cases, if someone shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, what happens afterwards is that person gets arrested and put on trial for murder. If they were to pass a law that says that certain people are allowed to shoot people on Fifth Avenue, you didn’t change what those people can do.
My understanding is that it doesn’t officially give the President more powers. It just makes it where they can’t be prosecuted for official acts, and expands what is presumed to be an official act. It then makes it much harder to get something considered not an official act.
However, not being able to be prosecuted in practice greatly expands the power of the president. It essentially makes “official act” a valid defense for any act that would be criminal for the average person. And it is harder to convict.
Imagine any one guy was given a blanket pardon for any and all acts. Sure, technically it just changes what they can be prosecuted for. But, in practice, they now have the power to do a lot more things.
Yes. The key point that seems to rile pundits is the details.
The president is immune for “official acts”, i.e. what is part of his duties and job as president. So whether the president can be prosecuted for selling pardons, or for failing to send the national guard or the army in a riotous situation - now he explicitly cannot.
This is not much different than anyone else. You can’t charge or sue the policeman for arresting you, or the judge for convicting you. It’s their job, generally they are entitled to do it. There are timess when a decision is called for, and as long as that decision is made with the right intentions in the course of official duties, it’s legal. Additionally, the executive has “executive privilege”, the other branches are not entitled to disect the cirumstances and advice that resulted in the decision, who advised what etc. (Logical, nobody will advise the president freely if they know a congressional inquiry or trial will get to air all the juicy details).
However, until now, the actions themselves have been subject to legal challenges. As mentioned above, the president may find himself legally liable once out of office, even if the law chooses not to charge him in office as a matter of policy.
But the supremes went even further - as an extension of “executive privilege” nothing about an official act, or the motives and how it was decided, can be used as evidence, nor can the official act itself. Thus, issuing a pardon is an official act. So if the president is paid for a pardon, that motivation and the fact that he issued a pardon cannot be entered as evidence. So if the president is charged with bribery for the pardon sale, the prosecution cannot mention that the president issued a pardon, nor can they question the president’s motive. As one commentator put it, it’s hard to prove quid pro quo without the quo.
Plus, the president could issue orders to the army (or the US marshals, or FBI, or IRS, etc.) and the fact that he did so cannnot be used as evidence against him, presumably he cannot be compelled to testify if those other officials are charged; but he can pardon them ahead of time, and the fact that he did so cannot be used as evidence of a consipracy to violate the law.
As mentioned, the president can still be impeached. But the only punishment in impeachment (for the pedants, impeachment and convction in the senate) is to remove the president from office and optionally bar him from running again. Presumably the same immunity applies when he becomes The Former Guy.
Also note this immunity does not extend to acts before taking office, or after leaving office, as well as any act in office that cannot be construed as “official”, part of his duties.
To stray into the real world, does signing personal cheques in furtherance of a crime, but in the Oval Office, count as an official duty? What about conversations with aides during that time? What right does a president have as an “official act” to call up a state official and inquire about the reiability of an election? It’s a state that runs the election - but as head of the DoJ perhaps he’s entitled to inquire if a crime happened? Courts (ultimately, the Supreme Court) will have to decide where the “official” line is drawn and which evidence cannot be admitted.
Here is a list (not comprehensive) of some things a president could get away with after this ruling:
I know I should, but I’m trying to regulate my emotional state. My apologies for making others do the work.
But I think I’ve figured out the core of what’s confusing me. Everyone is talking about “immunity” from prosecution making presidential actions “legal,” and I’m not sure what that means, exactly. To me, it implies that there were certain circumstances under which you could halt the order of a sitting president by arresting them (by whom, and on whose orders, I’m not sure) and hauling them into a court of law, and now that’s impossible. Is that the case, and if so, what were those circumstances? If Trump had wanted to poison a civil servant in 2017, what actual practical legal mechanism was there to stop him that no longer exists?
Technically yes, but in reality- no. The Justice dept etc wont bring charges against a sitting president. But that is a policy, not a rule.
Right. It it just that trump committed so many crimes, like no other president ever has (Grant did commit some “traffic” offenses and paid his fine)
The difference is that before the ruling a hypothetical president might have hesitated to do a flatly illegal action (like ordering the military to kill their political opponent). After the ruling, the Supreme Court has made it such that that president need not fear any such prosecution and indeed has made it difficult or impossible for a prosecutor to even investigate the conduct of the president.
So the only thing controlling a rogue or despotic president is the fear of impeachment, which (a) has no criminal penalties associated with it, and (b) can quite easily be stymied by members of Congress intent on protecting the President (as was seen in Trump’s two impeachment trials).
So much of our system of checks and balances has fallen by the wayside, and we are basically trusting in the good behavior of the president. Let’s see how that works out. 
I think a lot that of way of expressing it comes down to Nixon’s “When the president does it, it is legal.” Murder is still against the law, but if you cannot prosecute a person for murder because they’re immune, then for them murder is effectively legal. They can act with impunity.
And that’s what has changed. Where the president before might be like “I better not murder my political rival, I might be prosecuted for murder.” Now, according to the ruling, the president can murder their political rival, and be safe knowing that they cannot be prosecuted for it. Assuming they can find some fig leaf to make it an official act, which is trivial. The president is above the law so long as they’re committing an official act, which this ruling has made extremely broad due to the if there is any danger to enfeebling the executive then the president has presumptive immunity.
It is a really bad decision, and it didn’t need to be. That’s the thing. They went way passed where anybody thought they would land. Most people thought no immunity, but I know some people thought they might land on “immunity so long as it isn’t for personal reasons”. But they’ve carved all of that out. You cannot question the president’s motives for any act. As I stated previously, I don’t think we’ll see any president commit murder, at least not right away. Too risky that SCOTUS will rule that it doesn’t cover murder, but oh boy, if a corrupt president gets in charge the damage they can still do is extreme. And if it goes on long enough, I think you will the presidency become a dictatorship. If they get to the point where they can be very, very certain that SCOTUS won’t come down on them for murder…
I know a lot of people have said, “Expand the court! Expand the court!” to a lot of decisions. I don’t think so… until now. This decision is, to me, that level of bad.
Okay, so you’re saying that in 2018, there was indeed a legal mechanism by which Trump ordering a hit could have conceivably been immediately arrested and tried in court, and that this mechanism no longer exists. Is this correct?
Not at all. I’m saying that in 2018 Trump might have hesitated to perform an illegal action because of a fear of future prosecution. But now a president has little or no such fear of future prosecution.
All right, so the answer to my subject line is no, there has been no change in presidential powers for a president currently in office. Thank you. I can now read about and discuss this topic without brain fuzz.
That’s true in the sense that there are no explicitly new powers. But it greatly expands presidential power to use their powers in what would otherwise be illegal ways.
How? That’s the part that makes no sense to me. If they could do it before, and the only thing that was stopping them was their own conscience and fear of prosecution after leaving office, that’s not really a practical barrier at all, as far as I’m concerned.
I respect your point of view, but I greatly disagree.