Law professor Richard Hasen from UCLA discusses the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, highlighting the implications for holding Trump accountable for his actions. The episode explores the division among justices, the distinctions between absolute and presumptive immunity, and the potential impact on future legal precedents. It also reflects on the consequences of the ruling on Trump's other criminal prosecutions and the political repercussions, including the possibility of impeachment proceedings against justices.
The Supreme Court ruling grants extensive immunity to presidents, blurring the line between official and unofficial actions in court cases.
The decision reflects a shift in power towards the courts, raising concerns about checks and balances and prioritizing democratic protection.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity
The Supreme Court's recent ruling established extensive immunity for presidents, offering absolute immunity for core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for duties within official responsibility. This decision impacts cases of criminal prosecution against presidents, leaving a blurred line between official and unofficial actions and complicating evidence presentation in court.
Impact on Jack Smith's Prosecution of Trump
The ruling affects Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump for his actions related to the election subversion. Official acts like conversations with top officials may be immune, while unofficial actions like inciting crowds on January 6th may be subject to prosecution. The case's fate hinges on lower court reconsiderations and potential trial delays if Trump loses presidential immunity.
Broader Implications and Challenges
The decision reflects a broader realignment of power towards the courts, limiting regulatory agencies' authority and empowering presidents. Concerns arise over judicial checks and balances as the Supreme Court asserts control over statutory interpretations and administrative proceedings. Addressing these shifts may require a legislative response to counterbalance judicial empowerment and protect democratic principles.
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.