Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court has conferred a broad level of immunity on the day-to-day official actions of a president, defining official acts within the outer perimeter of official duties. The ruling implies that if an action is part of the president's official duties and a plausible application of his responsibilities, he would be immune, even for extreme actions like ordering an assassination. The immunity granted is separate from the president's motivation, with the Court emphasizing that courts should not inquire into the president's motives to avoid judicial examination of official conduct. The legal theory justifying this robust view of presidential power and immunity is based on the Constitution's empowerment of a powerful chief executive, separating powers to prevent Congress or the courts from subjecting the president to criminal prosecution. This approach aims to keep the legal system away from the president, assuming law-abiding behavior and morality from the presidency while not fully grappling with the possibility of a president acting lawlessly in official capacity. Chief Justice Roberts highlights that this prosecution scenario involving a former president is unprecedented, suggesting an issue with the prosecution, but it could also indicate a need for accountability for lawless conduct by a president, particularly after leaving office.