Supreme Court strikes proper balance on presidential immunity
As prosecutors nakedly abuse the powers of their office for partisan purposes, the Supreme Court’s decision to extend criminal immunity to a president’s official acts is prudent. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s politically motivated prosecution and special counsel Jack Smith’s politically timed prosecution make the dangers clear.
With lawfare now a routine means of weakening political opponents, the court’s 6-3 majority in Trump v. United States struck the right balance, extending the immunity presidents already enjoy in the civil context, which all nine justices support, to the criminal context.
Critics of presidential immunity are right when they say there is no “presidential immunity clause” in the Constitution. But there is no separation of powers clause either and yet that legal concept has been a guiding principle of constitutional law since the Supreme Court’s first decision.
More than 40 years ago in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, an Air Force employee sued President Richard Nixon in civil court. Nixon was out of office, but the plaintiff sought damages for Nixon’s decision to fire him after he testified to Congress about cost overruns at the Pentagon. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the majority held that “because of the singular importance of the President’s duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”
When determining if a president should be exempt from a legal action, courts “must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” The Fitzgerald majority noted that “there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions,” but the decision did not preclude immunity from a criminal complaint.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
As prosecutors nakedly abuse the powers of their office for partisan purposes, the Supreme Court’s decision to extend criminal immunity to a president’s official acts is prudent. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s politically motivated prosecution and special counsel Jack Smith’s politically timed prosecution make the dangers clear.
With lawfare now a routine means of weakening political opponents, the court’s 6-3 majority in Trump v. United States struck the right balance, extending the immunity presidents already enjoy in the civil context, which all nine justices support, to the criminal context.
Critics of presidential immunity are right when they say there is no “presidential immunity clause” in the Constitution. But there is no separation of powers clause either and yet that legal concept has been a guiding principle of constitutional law since the Supreme Court’s first decision.
More than 40 years ago in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, an Air Force employee sued President Richard Nixon in civil court. Nixon was out of office, but the plaintiff sought damages for Nixon’s decision to fire him after he testified to Congress about cost overruns at the Pentagon. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the majority held that “because of the singular importance of the President’s duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”
When determining if a president should be exempt from a legal action, courts “must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” The Fitzgerald majority noted that “there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions,” but the decision did not preclude immunity from a criminal complaint.
Supreme Court strikes proper balance on presidential immunity - Washington Examiner
In the presidential immunity case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court struck the right balance.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
