Law professor Richard Hasen from UCLA discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, particularly focusing on the implications for Trump. The ruling distinguishes between absolute and presumptive immunity for official acts, raising concerns about accountability and the challenges of prosecuting a president. The podcast explores the complexity of differentiating between official and unofficial actions, highlighting the potential impact on future criminal cases involving Trump.
The Supreme Court's ruling grants presidents like Trump substantial immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office, distinguishing between absolute and presumptive immunity for official duties.
The ruling affects Trump's ongoing criminal prosecutions, such as the January 6th case, leading to potential prolonged legal proceedings and significant consequences for future legal challenges.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity
The Supreme Court's ruling granted substantial immunity to presidents like Trump from prosecution for acts committed while in office. The court distinguished between absolute immunity for core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for duties within the official responsibility perimeter. This decision significantly hinders the possibility of prosecuting a president for unofficial actions, creating challenges in differentiating official from unofficial acts.
Impact on Trump's Prosecutions and Future Presidency
The ruling affects Trump's ongoing criminal prosecutions, including the January 6th case and potential future legal actions. The decision could lead to prolonged legal proceedings and potential immunity arguments in other cases against Trump. Additionally, if Trump wins a second term, the case may be dropped, indicating potential significant consequences for Trump's legal challenges in the future.
Supreme Court's Power Realignment
The podcast discusses a broader trend in the Supreme Court's decisions, highlighting a shift in power dynamics towards the Court itself. Decisions that restrict agency power elevate the judicial branch, giving the Court more authority to scrutinize and challenge executive actions. This realignment potentially empowers presidents while limiting agency actions, impacting how regulations are interpreted and enforced.
The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents enjoy “substantial immunity” from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, which includes absolute immunity for “core constitutional duties” and “presumptive immunity” for “official acts.”
All good news for one Donald J. Trump. How bad is it for the rest of us?
Guest: Richard Hasen, law professor at UCLA and director of UCLA Law’s Safeguarding Democracy Project.
Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.