This ruling sounds good on its face, but it's mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.
It doesn't define what is or isn't an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it's up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn't on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can't be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I'm sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!
It also says it is the government's burden to prove an act isn't official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.
It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn't absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn't clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.
Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.
It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don't do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person's job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.
And note that they don't give him his immunity now. They 100% will when it makes it back up to them, but they can do half the ruling now to blow off a little steam and then when they declare insurrection and espionage official acts people will already be resigned to it. Same reason they leaked the Roe ruling. They're worried about riots and being lynched if they give people enough of a focal point to organize.
The petition accuses Yoon of corruption, stoking the risk of war with North Korea and exposing South Koreans to health risks by not stopping Japan from releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Yoon has been unpopular since taking office in 2022, with his latest approval ratings hovering around the 25 percent mark since April.
I mean, that's what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he's operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they've opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there'd be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
You're missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they're kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They're ret-2-go but the Supreme's did their job of punting this until at least October, since that's when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It's fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.
Oh, ALSO:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.
But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that's planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It's not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.
Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It's not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don't even need evidence, they just need motive. We're real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn't mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what's the difference? They don't have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I'm reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don't have to follow the law if it's an official act. That's kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can't. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can't decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it's a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.
The guidance says:
Courts cannot consider motive
An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law
Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ
Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)
Engagement with private parties is not an official act
Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not
Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist
So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it's done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.
The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.
I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Of course that's only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don't care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it'll come back up and they'll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
The main thing you're missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They'll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives' whims.
This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I've read the majority ruling and it doesn't mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.
Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won't come up again.
Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.
Don't worry, they effectively ruled it's okay as a hobby as well by gutting the Chevron defense last week to kneecap the EPA and every major federal agency.
Would it be illegal for Biden to invalidate every ruling this Court has made, including the Presidential immunity one? Or would that lead to a paradox?
The ruling on presidential immunity today was pretty paradoxical, he has criminal immunity to breaking the law if he argues it's "to take care that laws be faithfully executed." Absolute immunity even since that's right in article 2, so why not?
What do you think the odds are of us getting people who refuse to take the Covid vaccine to take the bird flu vaccine?
Unvaccinated people become mutation factories and the disease mutates so that the vaccine is no longer effective, that's why it's important to have everyone vaccinated to prevent the outbreak from worsening.
If only 1/2 of people get the vaccine, we're fucked.
I firmly believe when it comes to serious medical issues like this, personal freedom of choice can just go fuck itself.
You don't want to be vaccinated? Too bad, we'll tie you down and give it to you anyway.
How much would it mutate before it was through getting through those people to the point that the vaccine loses effectiveness? They're a danger to us too.
Viruses evolve, some quite quickly. The flu isn't the fastest (looking at you, HIV), but it's up there. Over time, existing vaccines train your body to fight something that doesn't quite match what's in the wild (i.e. efficacy goes down with time). That's why there's a different seasonal flu vaccine every year.
They create flu vaccines on a yearly cycle, and a pandemic can kick off in a matter of weeks and months, so if it doesn't match the preplanned cycle, they'll have to invest more resources to creating the most up to date vaccine off-cycle.
I don't know if it's like other influenza vaccines, but their effectiveness could be a lot higher. That might be easier when we're just talking about one specific strain. I don't really know enough about the science.
When this first dropped, all the news media had kind of cautious titles. It wasn't until after their legal reporters actually read it that they started getting the point.
right, but they also said any exercise of constitutional authority is an official act, so good luck getting anything declared a private act by the courts.
I hope he declares the supreme court corrupt and a threat to our democracy and removes them all from the office to replace them with not shitty people. Because they are currently a large threat to our democracy. They said he could do it.
reuters.com
Active