Presidents, Laws, And Courts: Who Defends What?

The U.S. Constitution states that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. While this does not explicitly state that the President shall execute the laws, it implies that the President is responsible for ensuring that laws are carried out by others, typically referred to as subordinates. This has led to differing interpretations of the President's role in relation to the law, with some arguing for presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and others highlighting instances where Presidents have been challenged in court. For example, in Train v. City of New York (1975), the Supreme Court ruled against President Nixon's impoundment of federal funds, stating that he lacked the authority to do so. The question of whether a President can be sued or prosecuted remains a subject of debate, with the Supreme Court asserting that a President can be sued for private acts but enjoys immunity for official acts.

The Supreme Court has said that a president can be sued for his private acts

The Supreme Court has indeed stated that a president can be sued for their private acts. This means that the president's acts prior to and during their presidency can be subject to legal action. This decision stems from the understanding that not all actions taken by the president while in office are considered official acts.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has also ruled that the president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for official acts and those that fall within the "'outer rim' of official responsibilities." This broad interpretation of official acts can make it challenging for prosecutors to indict a president for private criminal acts. The Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity from prosecution for official acts is based on the concern that civil lawsuits against a president would lead to distraction and distortion, impacting the president's ability to carry out their official duties effectively.

The question of whether a president's official acts can constitute the basis for criminal prosecution remains a subject of debate. While the Supreme Court has not explicitly stated that a president is immune from criminal prosecution, the Department of Justice maintains that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted or indicted. This is based on the structural intuition that a president should not be incapacitated, except through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, which allows for the sidelining of an incapacitated president.

The discussion around presidential immunity and the potential for lawsuits against the president's private acts highlights the complex balance between holding leaders accountable and maintaining the effective functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court's decisions in this area have significant implications for presidential power and the ability to hold presidents accountable for their actions while in office.

The president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for his official acts

The concept of presidential immunity from prosecution and lawsuits has been a contentious issue in the United States. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant immunity to the President, the doctrine of presidential immunity has evolved over time through judicial decisions involving civil cases against the executive branch. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for official acts within the "'outer perimeter'" of their duties. This means that the President is protected from personal liability for acts undertaken in the course of their official responsibilities.

The idea of presidential immunity is rooted in the principle of separation of powers, which cautions courts to proceed cautiously before interfering with the executive branch. The Supreme Court has recognised that civil lawsuits against a President for damages arising from official acts could distract and hinder the President from effectively carrying out their official duties. The Court has also emphasised that qualified immunity would not suffice in such cases, as it could lead to the very intrusion that immunity aims to prevent.

The case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) is a prominent example of the Supreme Court's recognition of presidential immunity. In this case, the Court held that the President is "absolutely immune" from civil damage actions for acts within the "outer perimeter" of their official duties. This decision was based on the understanding that the President holds a unique office and that immunity is necessary to maintain the separation of powers.

It is important to note that presidential immunity does not extend to unofficial or private acts. The Supreme Court has clarified that the President can be sued for private acts, including those committed before and during their presidency. Additionally, while sitting Presidents are generally immune from criminal prosecution, former Presidents do not enjoy absolute immunity from criminal liability for acts committed during their term.

In conclusion, the President of the United States enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for official acts within the scope of their duties. This immunity is intended to protect the effective functioning of the executive branch and maintain the separation of powers. However, it is not without limits, and the President can still be held accountable for unofficial or private acts that fall outside the "outer perimeter" of their official responsibilities.

The Department of Justice says a president is immune from criminal prosecution

The question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted has been a topic of debate for many years. While the Supreme Court has said that a president can be sued for private acts, it has also been said that the president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for official acts.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. This conclusion is based on the Constitution's structure and Supreme Court precedent related to immunity from civil liability. The DOJ's decision means that no federal prosecutor can prosecute a sitting president. The DOJ's stance is grounded in the belief that a criminal indictment, prosecution, or punishment would effectively incapacitate the presidency. They argue that impeachment or the 25th Amendment are the only means to legally incapacitate a sitting president.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the DOJ also supports this position, citing that a criminal prosecution would distract the president, rendering them unable to function, and possibly leading to changes in various policies to curry favor with the public. This belief is further supported by a quote from Justice Joseph Story's 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," which states that the president is not subject to civil arrest.

The question of presidential criminal immunity has resurfaced during the presidency of Donald Trump and the Mueller special counsel investigation. The Mueller report concluded that, bound by the OLC memoranda, Trump could be investigated but not indicted, as it would not be fair to label his actions as criminal without giving him the chance to defend himself.

While the DOJ and OLC maintain that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, others, like Laurence Tribe, argue that it is constitutional to prosecute a sitting president. This ongoing debate highlights the differing visions of presidential immunity.

Presidents can be impeached, or sidelined via the 25th Amendment if incapacitated

The US Constitution does not state that the President shall execute the laws, but that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". This implies that the execution of laws is carried out by others, termed as subordinates. The President is the ultimate guardian of the law and is responsible for ensuring that the laws are executed faithfully.

The President can be sued for his private acts, and this may include acts committed before and during his presidency. However, the President enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for all official acts and extends to the outer rim of his official acts.

The President can be impeached, and this is one of the ways to legally incapacitate the President. The other way is through the 25th Amendment, which allows for the temporary transfer of the President's powers and duties to the Vice President. This transfer can be initiated by the Vice President together with a majority of the President's cabinet or by the President himself. The Vice President then becomes the Acting President until the President's powers are restored. The 25th Amendment was passed by Congress on July 6, 1965, and ratified on February 10, 1967.

The 25th Amendment was created to address issues related to presidential succession and disability. It clarifies that the Vice president becomes President if the President dies, resigns, or is impeached. It also provides a mechanism for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President.

The terms "unable" and "inability" in the 25th Amendment were left undefined to cover a wide range of circumstances that may prevent the President from carrying out their duties. The framers of the Amendment did consider medical evidence to be helpful in determining the President's inability to perform their duties, but neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for such a determination.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon could not impound federal monetary assistance

While the president of the United States has the power to enforce laws, this power is not absolute. The president is responsible for ensuring that the laws are executed faithfully, often by subordinates. The president's name of office is "designatio personae", which means that certain expenditures, such as those from the "secret service" fund, must be vouched for by the president personally.

In the case of Train v. City of New York (1975), the Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon could not impound federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Court unanimously decided that Nixon lacked the authority to impound funds appropriated by a federal statute, even though he had previously vetoed the program, only to be overridden by Congress.

The issue of presidential impoundment has rarely been raised in the last 50 years due to the enactment of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which outlaws such actions. However, this Act has been criticised as an unconstitutional usurpation of presidential power.

While the president cannot be prosecuted or indicted while in office, they can be sued for private acts, including those committed before and during their presidency. The Supreme Court has also stated that the president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for official acts. Nevertheless, the Court has not explicitly held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution.

Frequently asked questions