The Soho Forum Debates Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity?
7 snips
Dec 13, 2024 
Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor known for her expertise in separation of powers, and Glenn Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, engage in a lively debate over the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. Foley defends the necessity of immunity for executive functions, while Greenwald argues it creates a dangerous precedent. They explore historical examples, the implications of unchecked power, and the balance between accountability and presidential authority, shedding light on a crucial aspect of U.S. governance.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Presidential Immunity for Official Acts
- The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States established that presidents have immunity for "official acts" taken within their Article II authority.
- This principle isn't new; it builds upon the 1981 Nixon v. Fitzgerald case involving civil suits.
Rationale for Immunity
- The rationale behind presidential immunity is rooted in the principle of horizontal separation of powers among the three branches of government.
- Unlike the legislative and judicial branches, all executive power is vested in a single person, the President, making them a unique target for litigation.
Immunity and the Founders
- Glenn Greenwald agrees with Professor Foley that the Trump v. United States ruling wasn't shocking, given the trend of increasing presidential immunity.
- However, he argues that granting immunity, even for criminal acts committed in office, recreates the very abuses of monarchy that the founders sought to avoid.
