Presidential Immunity and Historical Accountability

Did the Supreme Court err in its July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States that "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"? That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate. Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley and journalist Glenn Greenwald debated the resolution, "Presidential immunity for official acts is a key factor in the proper functioning of the U.S. government's executive branch."

Defending the resolution was Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University, where she teaches constitutional law and separation of powers. She has testified before Congress on numerous constitutional topics, and is the author of three books on constitutional law.

Arguing for the negative was Greenwald, a journalist and podcaster who won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations. He left The Intercept in 2020 to become independent, and is now the host of SYSTEM UPDATE nightly on Rumble.

This debated was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

The post Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity? appeared first on Reason.com.