The President And Legal Boundaries: Can They Break Laws?

The question of whether or not the president is allowed to break the law has been a subject of debate and legal interpretation for many years. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant civil or criminal immunity to the president, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the outer perimeter of their duties. This has led to concerns that the president could commit crimes under the guise of official business, with some scholars arguing that this puts the president above the law and poses a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law. The Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity to presidents has set a precedent that many fear could lead to unchecked power and corruption in the highest office of the land.

Supreme Court grants Trump immunity from prosecution

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has granted former President Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for a wide range of criminal conduct committed during his tenure in office. The ruling, which came in the case of Trump v. United States, has sparked fierce criticism and concerns about the implications for the nation's democracy.

The Supreme Court's decision, made by a 6-3 majority, determined that Trump is "presumptively immune" from criminal liability for his official acts while in office and is absolutely immune for some "core" actions. This includes his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. The court's Republican-appointed justices, including three Trump appointees, concluded that the president is a branch of government and should be free from prosecution to forcefully enact his agenda.

This ruling sets a precedent that grants future presidents, including Trump if he is re-elected, significant leeway to engage in criminal conduct without facing legal consequences. The court's opinion has been criticised by legal experts and civil liberties organisations, who argue that it places the president above the law and undermines the principle that all citizens, including the president, are equal under the law.

While the court rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity for all acts, it granted him substantial immunity for criminal conduct carried out through his official powers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the decision gives presidents legal cover to break the law and enables future presidents to act with impunity. The court's broad interpretation of "official acts" further complicates any future attempts to hold a president criminally accountable.

The immediate consequence of the ruling is the impact on the federal prosecution of Trump for interfering in the 2020 election. While the case is not completely dismissed, the Supreme Court's decision to disqualify certain allegations involving Trump's communications with the Department of Justice will significantly delay and complicate the prosecution's efforts.

The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has far-reaching implications and has sparked intense debate about the balance of power and the role of the presidency in the United States.

The president's power to commit crimes

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) has granted sitting presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts under core constitutional powers, setting a dangerous precedent that the president is above the law. This decision gives presidents the power to commit crimes under the guise of official action, which poses a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court's ruling found that the president cannot be held legally liable for actions taken within the scope of official, core constitutional duties, and courts cannot explore a president's motives when assessing whether they broke the law. This effectively places the president above the law, contrary to the principles established by the nation's founders.

The ruling grants absolute immunity to presidents for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for official acts within the "outer perimeter" of their official responsibility. However, it is important to note that this immunity does not extend to unofficial acts, and the president can still be prosecuted for private acts.

The decision has sparked concerns among legal scholars and political scientists, who warn of the potential for authoritarian leaders to pursue power by any means necessary. They argue that the ruling could lead to a crisis if former President Donald Trump wins re-election and exploits these new protections to target his political opponents.

While the Supreme Court's ruling provides broad immunity to presidents, it is important to note that other forms of accountability exist, such as civil lawsuits, the ballot box, and congressional oversight. These mechanisms can help prevent presidential abuses of power and ensure that the president remains accountable to the people.

Presidential immunity from civil suits

Presidential immunity is the concept that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. This immunity is not explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute. However, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court found that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. The Court theorised that absolute immunity for the President must be found in the separation of powers doctrine. Due to the broad range and sensitive nature of the President's responsibilities, their constant visibility, and the judicial deference they have historically been accorded, the Court concluded that civil damages suits would unduly distract the President from their official duties.

The Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald has set a precedent for presidential immunity in civil suits. This precedent was further reinforced by the Court's ruling in Trump v. United States (2024). In this case, the Court ruled that all presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Despite the precedent set by Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Trump v. United States, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has also ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Court held that presidential immunity generally does not extend to lawsuits over matters that predate the president taking office. This ruling highlights that while the president may have immunity for official acts, they can still be held accountable for their actions before becoming president.

The concept of presidential immunity from civil suits is a complex and evolving area of law, with ongoing debates and differing interpretations. While the Supreme Court has set precedents, each case involving presidential immunity is likely to be considered on its own merits and specific circumstances.

The Department of Justice's stance on presidential immunity

The Department of Justice (DOJ) holds that the president is immune from federal criminal prosecution. This means that no federal prosecutor can prosecute a sitting president. The DOJ's stance is based on the idea that a criminal indictment, prosecution, or punishment would effectively incapacitate the presidency. They argue that the only legal means to remove or incapacitate a sitting president are impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

The DOJ's claim is based on structural intuitions and extrapolations from Supreme Court precedent. They believe that a criminal prosecution would distract the president, prevent them from functioning effectively, and potentially lead to changes in various policies as the president tries to curry favour with the public.

The DOJ's position is that the president shouldn't be indicted, prosecuted, or punished while in office. This policy was established in the 1970s and has been reiterated multiple times since.

However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. The DOJ's stance is based on their interpretation of the Constitution and precedent.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's eligibility for the 2024 election

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions within his constitutional powers as president, recognizing presidential immunity from prosecution for the first time. The 6-3 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that a former president has "absolute immunity" for their "core constitutional powers" and presumptive immunity for acts within the "outer perimeter of his official responsibility." This set a precedent, with critics arguing it placed the president above the law.

The ruling pertained to four categories of conduct in the indictment against Trump:

• His discussions with Justice Department officials following the 2020 election.
• His alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Biden's win.
• His alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors for the certification process.
• His conduct related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The court found Trump absolutely immune regarding his conversations with Justice Department officials and presumptively immune concerning his interactions with Pence. The other two categories were returned to lower courts to determine immunity.

The decision, falling along party lines, reduced the likelihood of the federal criminal case against Trump proceeding before the 2024 election, where he is the Republican nominee. The ruling was criticized by Biden, Justice Sotomayor, and other liberals, who argued it created a ""law-free zone around the president," with Sotomayor stating it "makes a mockery" of the principle that "no man is above the law."

The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for presidential power and accountability, with some arguing it grants a blank check to the president to break the law.

Frequently asked questions