Sort of. There is lots of language pointing to the various cases that instruct, and hints as to which of the charges they think are inside or outside. But they didn’t rule conclusively (because they held that the District Court should be the first reviewer).
Based on a quick reading:
Conversations with DOJ officials are official acts, no matter what the content/instruction.
Actions relating to the VP (“Hey Mike, go invalidate the election”) are undetermined, but potential unofficial.
Public comments (“let’s go up to the Capital and let them know how angry we are”) are likely official since the President’s public statements are part of his job
Interactions with state officials (“hey GA, let’s go find some illegal votes”) or fake electors undetermined, but likely unofficial
That’s my quick interpretation, but IANAL.
One little side-part (which ACB didn’t agree to) is that the prosecution cannot introduce any evidence that is part of “official acts” to prove other elements of the indictment. So if you need the conversation with the acting AG, for example, to prove the charge relating to state election interference, well too bad. Again, just my non-lawyer reading.
Ultimately I think it’s a kick-the-can decision that tries to thread the needle and provide an avenue for letting Trump specifically off the hook without providing a blanket immunity that would be deeply unpopular and dangerous.
Well, at least they remand to the lower courts for distinction between official and unofficial - which, of course, will then be appealed back up the chain.
VERY strong dissent by Sotomayer, not signed “Respectfully” but instead, “In fear for our democracy.”
Bottomline, no prosecution till after the election.
This is the proper read, per people like Neal Katyal. Motive is not relevant if it’s an official act. All that Seal Team 6 stuff? Yep, now a valid defense, if a defense is even required if it was deemed within the perimeter of his authority.
This is really, really bad. Our democracy is in great peril. So long as Trump conducts all his malfeasance within a colorable veil of “official,” he is now King, above the law. Untouchable.
If he says that to, like, a guy in uniform who’s required by law to salute and follow orders, then that’s one thing; but how does it fit if he’s talking to me, and to a group of people who — like me — can reply to him as they would to you, or to Ben Affleck and Matt Damon put together: with a sneer and a smirk and a You’re Not The Boss Of Me?
So if Biden sends Seal Team 6 against certain SCOTUS Justices, who’s then going to tell him he wasn’t allowed to? And who is going to refuse to approve his new nominees?
It’s only complicated if you want to make it complicated.
How about a State’s Governor orders their National Guard to defend the State Penitentiary against a imminent assault from gang members trying to free their mob boss and, in the confrontation, a mass killing occurs of the gang members? Is the Governor liable? He ordered the troops.
No, the solution is the correct the law for murder so that it does not apply to the unintended killing of persons as a result of authorized military actions. Collateral damage, I think they call it (I hated that).
What if the President orders the US military to perform a raid on a suspected terrorist enclave in a city where certain congressional members are making a “fact-finding” tour, and as a result, some (perhaps only those an opposing party) are killed? That should certainly be criminal in my book, unless, perhaps, the congressional tour had been notified they were likely to find themselves in a war zone.
The clean and easy way is just to deny criminal immunity. That prevents corruption. Allowing immunity when the court decides, encourages it.
Except what I posted isn’t really a “read”; it’s a question. Or at least, an opening for questions. One could (and I hope would) have an interpretation that the President ordering Seal Team Six to kill bin Laden was a protected official act, but that the President ordering Seal Team Six to kill the other party’s nominee for the election is not an official act and is therefore not protected. But somewhere in between there, there’s a line. Where is that line?
I believe the thinking of the SCOTUS majority is a combination of: (a) the person receiving the order refusing to execute illegal orders and (b) impeachment.
Of course, someone willing and able to send troops to outright murder someone isn’t going to worry too much about anyone bringing articles of impeachment to a literal gunfight.
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. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Of course not, but I’m not sure that this ruling measurably changes that dynamic. Any President that was willing to use the military to stay in power, and had a military willing to execute those orders, would be able to stay in power. That is true in all governments, I believe.
The only difference here, I suppose, is whether after (if?) the coup was thwarted the President giving the orders would be criminally liable for his actions.
I would add that other than the charges related to ordering the Acting AG to send official letters to various states and threatening to fire him if he didn’t, all other charges were remanded to the District Court for evaluation regarding where they fell under official/unofficial acts. And that the “presumptive immunity” can be overcome if the specific facts warrant it.
So there are plenty of avenues in which various Seal Team 6-type orders could be found to be both within the “official acts” umbrella but also not immune from prosecution. In fact, if Trump loses, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the acts in the indictment survive that scrutiny.
Of course if Trumps wins then the prosecutions will be dropped - but electing a wanna-be-dictator is another potential weakness in the democratic system, and one which has felled many of them in the past.
It’s the People who call for enforcement. With this ruling, the Courts have blatantly muted the People.
Not to mention, it makes what should be an easy decision so complicated that even the highest court in the land has trouble with it’s own gobbledygook.
Really, there is no justification to make the President above the law in any circumstance.
I disagree. This ruling says the president is absolutely immune from prosecution for official acts that fall under his presidential power. A president has the power to order his AG to send letters to the states. A president has the power to fire his AG. Ergo, the threats are not illegal when the president does it.
Again, IANAL, but I don’t think is right. SCOTUS defined at least three types of Presidential actions:
Those within his “core, exclusive Constitution duties”. For these he is absolutely immune. Overseeing the DOJ is part of these functions, so Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any conversations with the Acting AG or other DOJ officials. This would likely to extent to DOD officials, per the same reasoning.
Those within the “outer limits” of his executive function, but not “core, exclusive Constitutional responsibilities” (basically those powers which are shared with Congress). These have “presumptive immunity”, but that can be overcome by the Government via the specific facts of the case by proving that there are no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” For Trump, this includes his actions regarding trying to get Pence to refuse to certify the EC votes and possibly his Tweets and speech encouraging the mob to invade the capital.
Those actions which are “unofficial”. These have no immunity. For Trump this may include his actions regarding the fake electors and various communications that were done as a candidate and party leader, not as President.
The various parts of the indictment that fall under (2) and (3) were remanded to the District Court for analysis.
I just don’t understand what SCOTUS based their decision on.
Maybe it’s a separation of powers thing? If the POTUS can be charged with something that’s legitimately part of their job, even if it’s done in a way that would violate a statute if done by a private citizen, if they are prosecuted that seems like the judicial telling the executive what to do.
I’m still curious what precedent or law this is based off of, specifically.
There is guidance in the majority opinion for the lower courts. Or example, anything he says as president? Immune. Pressuring the DOJ to falsely impugn the election? Immune. Presidents have to communicate with the public and interact with the DOJ. When doing so, whatever their motive or objective, no matter how evil or corrupt, they’re immune. That’s what lower courts will have to reference in evidentiary hearings. That is fucking broad.
And not only that, any evidence that springs from their official duties cannot be used in the prosecution of a “personal” crime. For example, even if it’s determined that his actions as a candidate are not immune, the advice he received from multiple aides that he had legitimately lost is inadmissible. Presidents receive counsel from their teams, and if that counsel is evidence that he had the mens rea for a “candidate” crime, it cannot be used.
Barrett, of all people, pointed out the absurdity of this, should a president accept a bribe for granting an ambassadorship. The president would be charge with…what? Taking money to do…what?
SCOTUS provided a very workable blueprint for a president to do whatever the fuck he wants, so long as he takes a trivial effort to frame it properly. This ruling has the potential for catastrophe, and if Trump is elected it undoubtedly will.