Presidential Accountability: Breaking Laws And Consequences

The question of whether a sitting US president can be prosecuted for breaking the law has been the subject of much debate and legal wrangling. While the US 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 been interpreted by some to mean that the president is above the law and can commit crimes under the guise of official business. This interpretation has been deemed dangerous by legal scholars and could potentially lead to a crisis if a corrupt president were to exploit these loopholes to pursue their political opponents. The Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity to presidents for official acts has been criticised as setting a dangerous precedent and giving too much power to an already powerful office.

Supreme Court grants Trump immunity

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump is "presumptively immune" from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some "core" acts. This ruling has been criticised by the ACLU, which argued that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law, not even the president.

The Supreme Court's ruling means that Trump cannot be prosecuted for attempting to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. The court also sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether the former president's other actions were official or personal acts and whether he is immune from prosecution for those acts.

The Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when using their formal powers. It also obstructs accountability for Trump, as it increases the likelihood that he will avoid criminal liability for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

While the court rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity for all acts unless convicted after impeachment, it granted him substantial immunity for criminal conduct, including crimes committed by attempting to enlist Justice Department officials. The court's ruling is based on the idea that a criminal indictment and prosecution would "incapacitate" the presidency, and that impeachment or the 25th Amendment are the only means to legally remove a president.

The decision has been criticised by legal experts and scholars, who argue that the Constitution does not grant the president any privileges or immunities beyond a guaranteed salary. They assert that if the founders intended to grant privileges and immunities to the president, they would have explicitly stated so in the Constitution.

Criminal prosecution

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between criminal immunity and the ability to prosecute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted by a federal prosecutor due to the potential disruption of their presidential duties. This interpretation is based on the belief that criminal proceedings would "effectively incapacitate" the president and is supported by memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 1973 and 2000. However, these memoranda are not legally binding outside of the DOJ and do not provide for complete immunity from prosecution.

In the case of Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". For acts outside of this core but within the "outer perimeter of official responsibility", the Court granted presumptive immunity. This distinction highlights the importance of classifying presidential actions as official or unofficial, which can be a challenging task.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States has been met with concern by legal scholars, who argue that it grants presidents broad powers to commit crimes under the guise of official business. This interpretation of absolute immunity could potentially lead to a crisis, especially if a president with authoritarian tendencies were to take office.

It is worth noting that criminal prosecution is not the only form of accountability for a president. Impeachment, for example, remains a viable option to address presidential misconduct, and the courts can still play a role in restraining presidential power. Additionally, other branches of the government, such as Congress, have oversight powers and can act as a check on the executive branch.

In conclusion, while criminal prosecution of a sitting president is a complex and rare occurrence, it is not entirely off the table. The line between official and unofficial acts is critical, and the potential for criminal liability may serve as a deterrent for presidential misconduct. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States has shifted the landscape, and further legal and political battles over presidential immunity may be expected.

Civil suits

The concept of presidential immunity holds that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. While civil and criminal immunity is not explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute, the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter in several cases.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct.

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme 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. This ruling has been criticised by scholars and legal experts, who argue that it gives presidents the power to commit crimes under the guise of official action, posing a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States has significant implications for civil suits against a president. While a president has absolute immunity for official acts, they do not have immunity for unofficial or private acts. This means that civil suits can be brought against a president for actions that fall outside the scope of their official duties.

For example, in Clinton v. Jones, Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for several counts related to allegedly sexually harassing her when he was governor of Arkansas, before he became president. The Supreme Court ruled that presidential immunity generally does not extend to lawsuits over matters that predate the president taking office.

In another case, Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court considered civil cases against Trump in the district and appeals courts in Washington, D.C., for his role in the violence of January 6, 2021. The appeals court panel ruled that the district trial court was correct in dismissing the broad presidential immunity claims made by Trump, but implied that he might argue that he was acting in an official capacity when he addressed the protest crowd. This case highlights the complexity of determining whether a president's actions fall within the scope of official duties and, therefore, whether they have immunity in civil suits.

In summary, while a sitting president has civil immunity for official acts, they do not have immunity for unofficial or private acts. This means that civil suits can be brought against a president for actions outside the scope of their official duties, including those that occurred before they took office. The determination of whether a president's actions fall within the scope of official duties can be complex and subject to legal interpretation.

Official acts

The concept of presidential immunity holds that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant immunity from civil or criminal liability, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.

In the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that a former or current president was absolutely immune from suit regarding acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties, citing the president's "unique status under the Constitution". The court's decision established a precedent of immunity for official acts, which has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases such as Clinton v. Jones (1997) and Trump v. United States (2024).

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". For official acts that fall outside this inner core but are still within the "outer perimeter" of official responsibility, a president enjoys presumptive immunity. This means that while these acts are presumed to be immune, there may be exceptional cases where immunity is rebutted.

The court's interpretation of "official acts" is notably broad and has been criticised for setting a dangerous precedent that places the president above the law. This broad interpretation allows for a wide range of actions to be considered official acts, including those that may be criminal or corrupt in nature.

The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has significant implications for the balance of power and the rule of law in the United States. By granting immunity for official acts, the court has effectively increased the power of the presidency and reduced the accountability of the president, potentially enabling corrupt or authoritarian behaviour.

Unofficial acts

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts. This means that a president can be prosecuted for unofficial or private acts committed while in office. This is a long-standing principle, with former President Ulysses S. Grant being fined for breaking the law while riding his horse in 1872.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity to presidents for official acts has been criticised by some as setting a dangerous precedent, allowing presidents to commit crimes under the guise of official business. This could lead to a situation where a president is able to act with impunity and pursue political opponents.

The ruling on presidential immunity has been described as a dramatic affirmation of broad, absolute immunity for a president, and it remains to be seen how this will impact the power of the presidency in the future. The decision has also been criticised for potentially transforming the office and increasing its power beyond what was envisioned by the nation's founders.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that a president can be prosecuted for unofficial acts, the impact of this decision on the balance of power between the branches of government and the checks and balances in place to hold the president accountable remains to be seen.

Frequently asked questions