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.
Ask episode
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
INSIGHT

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.
INSIGHT

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.
INSIGHT

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.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Get the app