Opinionpalooza: The Supreme Court Puts Presidents Above the Law (Preview)
Jul 1, 2024
auto_awesome
Exploring the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and the implications for presidential accountability. Discussing the extension of immunity to former presidents for official acts and its impact on democracy and separation of powers. Navigating the complexities of defining official duties, especially in cases like January 6th.
10:58
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court's ruling grants presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, raising concerns about accountability.
Expanding immunity to criminal acts within a president's official duties challenges oversight and accountability in future legal proceedings.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Grants Presidents Wide-Ranging Immunity from Prosecution
The latest Supreme Court ruling has granted presidents, including Trump and future presidents, wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution. The court differentiates between official acts within a president's constitutional authority, such as the pardon power, which receive absolute immunity, and unofficial acts that can be prosecuted after the president leaves office. This distinction effectively shields presidents from criminal accountability by setting a high bar for prosecutors to rebut the presumption of immunity, creating a significant limitation on holding presidents accountable for potential crimes.
Redefining Presidential Power and Immunity
The podcast highlights a significant shift in the concept of presidential power and immunity, comparing it to past cases like Fitzgerald. Unlike previous cases focused on civil lawsuits and immunity for official duties, the current ruling extends immunity to criminal acts classified as official acts. This restructuring of immunity protection for presidents raises questions about accountability, especially in cases like January 6th where the president's behavior may not align with acting in good faith, yet could still be considered under official acts.
Implications of the Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court's decision introduces a new category of criminal acts deemed as within a president's official duties, granting immunity to presidents even for such acts. This decision poses a challenge for accountability and oversight, as it significantly expands the protection granted to presidents beyond the scope of past interpretations. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes official acts in criminal cases presents uncertainties for future legal proceedings and reinforces the challenge in holding presidents accountable under the law.
1.
Analyzing Supreme Court's Ruling on Presidential Immunity
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to commit criminal wrongdoing to presidents. A court that already put a thumb on the scale for former President Donald J Trump by slow talking and slow walking the immunity case in exactly the way he hoped, has now thrown out the scale in favor of a brand new sweeping, monarchic immunity ruling in favor of the former president and any future insurrection-prone presidents. Trump v United States provides that US Presidents may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution because coups are constitutional as long as you make them official. This episode delves into the decision’s implications for democracy, and for presidential power, while also providing historical context. We also look ahead to the legal battles looming in the various Trump trials at all their various stages. What does this do to the Georgia indictments? The classified documents case? And the felony counts for which Trump will be sentenced next week? Host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts and the law, and Professor Corey Brettshnieder, who teaches constitutional law and political theory at Brown University and is the author of the new book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.