It’s a lengthy and complex decision; I’d be careful putting much weight to hot takes on this one. It’s gonna take time to read (myself included) and for knowledgeable people to really wrap their heads around.
A few safe first impressions and conclusions:
- The Court has authored a very, though not completely, deferential opinion to the executive powers of the office of the presidency. There is a very broad scope of immunity from prosecution for anything that is even arguably an ‘official act’.
- The court differentiates between a narrow absolute immunity for certain key roles and authorities of the president that are basically constitutional powers, versus a much broader presumptive (but rebuttable) immunity for any ‘official act’.
- There is no immunity for ‘unofficial acts’.
- SCOTUS does not draw the line between those two and leaves it to the trial courts (and then obviously probable appeal all the way back up).
- The prosecution of Trump for the Jan 6th case will definitely continue but will definitely be further delayed, probably significantly. SCOTUS has remanded the matter back to Judge Chutkan. She will be briefed on and will rule on the characterization of the many individual acts alleged in this indictment, and whether they are ‘official’, and if so, whether the presumption of immunity is rebutted for those specific facts. That’s a big delay.
- Finally, SCOTUS has ruled that official acts cannot even be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding- this is a bit of a sleeper within the larger ruling, but may have massive consequences in prosecution where it’s necessary to prove knowledge and intent, and where official acts may illuminate that, or the larger context.
The consequences of this ruling for the Trump prosecution are obviously significant, but are likely of far less significance than what it means for the office of the president writ large.
Any president, current or future, now knows they enjoy considerable immunity from prosecution for all manner of manifestly corrupt acts so long as it falls within their core constitutional powers. Some of the better hot takes I’ve seen - ones that will likely age well - suggest that we will come to realize that this decision will allow a president to enjoy immunity from prosecution for potentially massive abuse of the executive branch and its agencies. For a fun historical example, it appears Nixon would have enjoyed criminal immunity for Watergate.
We talk in Canada about the centralization of power in the PMO… Hold that thought in mind over coming years as we see further centralization of power in the presidency in the U.S. in a thread about the fracture of the United States, this is definitely turning the heat on the burner being turned up a notch or two.
