Legal expert Walter Olson discusses the presidential immunity established by SCOTUS in Trump v. United States, highlighting the invented nature of these protections. The podcast explores the challenges in proving unofficial actions of the president, the difficulties faced by Congress in overseeing the executive branch, and the ongoing debate surrounding presidential immunity and executive power.
SCOTUS introduced novel immunities for presidents, creating ambiguity in distinguishing official and unofficial actions.
Courts struggle with evidence admissibility in prosecuting unofficial presidential misconduct, placing oversight burden on Congress.
Deep dives
Implications of the Supreme Court's Decision in Trump v. United States
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States introduced novel immunities for the chief executive, making it challenging to discern which actions by the president fall outside these protections. The court categorized presidential actions into unofficial, core official, and other official actions, creating ambiguity around the distinction between official and unofficial conduct. This lack of clarity leaves lower courts unsure of how to apply the decision, particularly regarding the admissibility of evidence related to official acts.
Limitations on Prosecuting Unofficial Presidential Misconduct
The court's ruling restricted the admission of evidence regarding official acts in trials determining the guilt of a president for unofficial actions. This limitation on evidence intake poses a significant hurdle in prosecuting instances of unofficial misconduct by the president. Additionally, the court's stance against considering a president's motivation or their interactions with subordinates further complicates establishing whether specific actions were official or unofficial.
Congress's Role in Oversight of Presidential Conduct
With the court's constraints on evidence admissibility for prosecuting presidential misconduct, the responsibility for oversight falls back on Congress. However, recent trends indicate a reluctance of Congress, especially in partisan scenarios, to assert its oversight role effectively. This places an increased burden on Congress to uphold its constitutional mandate of overseeing the executive branch in the absence of robust checks from the judicial system.
It's hard to get a handle on the breadth of protections handed to current and future presidents in Trump v. United States. Cato's Walter Olson says much of the immunity from prosecution handed to these heads of state is wholly invented by SCOTUS.