So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1]
- Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers.
- Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution."
- Unofficial actions: No immunity.
Who is the arbiter of whether an action is official or unofficial? The courts, according to the ruling: "The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." In this case, a very liberal judge appointed by Obama.
One may disagree with the ruling, but it does not, as Sotomayor (who recently has been making more public and political appearances than is appropriate for someone of her position [2]) states, give the president the ability to drone strike his political opponent.
The president already has official authority to drone strike terrorists. All he has to do now is make an official determination that his political opponents are terrorists.
Yeah, we should definitely fix the fact that the President can order hits on US citizens. That's a pretty obvious problem regardless of whether they can technically be prosecuted for it, and doesn't really change the merits of the question at hand.
All this case says is we shouldn't leave a President's legal culpability for any given action up to prosecutorial discretion. If they're using their official powers they're not culpable, if they're acting outside the bounds of their powers they should be prosecuted.
The actual problem is that the President has too much power, not that the next administration should have the right to prosecute them for exercising it.
- Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers.
- Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution."
- Unofficial actions: No immunity.
Who is the arbiter of whether an action is official or unofficial? The courts, according to the ruling: "The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." In this case, a very liberal judge appointed by Obama.
One may disagree with the ruling, but it does not, as Sotomayor (who recently has been making more public and political appearances than is appropriate for someone of her position [2]) states, give the president the ability to drone strike his political opponent.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/politics/sotomayor-crying-sup...