The Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that presidents have immunity from prosecution when carrying out “official acts.” The ruling was not unanimous and fell along partisan lines, with six conservative justices voting in majority and three liberal judges dissenting.
The monumental case set a precedent for how the court will rule on future trials concerning criminal prosecution for presidents. The court divided actions into “official acts” and “unofficial acts.” Unofficial actions are then divided into two more categories, core actions and actions on the periphery.
Dr. Joseph Devaney, ABAC political science professor and pre-law advisor, said, “Core actions are actions of the president that are conclusive and preclusive. However, it does appear they’re referring to exclusive powers of the president, such as the power to veto a bill or issue a pardon… The problem is that the decision is not clear exactly as to what they mean by a conclusive and preclusive power.”
In cases Devaney refers to, such as issuing pardons, the court ruled that the president cannot be prosecuted for those presidential acts.
“The idea of giving the president immunity is that he can fulfill his duties as president. But if he believes he may be prosecuted for performing his duties, it may affect his decision-making process. Immunity insulates him from prosecution, and thus allows him to not be distracted by fear of prosecution in the future,” Devaney said.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor compared presidential immunity to the president using SEALS Team Six to assassinate a political rival. Since the president is the commander in chief and Seals Team Six is a military unit, would that be defined as an official act of the president?
Another example would be in 2011 when President Barack Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen living in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. President Obama killed al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son with a drone strike without due process of law, jury trial, right to an attorney, or a presumption of innocence.
The question surrounding this decision is what is defined as an official act. Prior to this decision, Obama could have been prosecuted, but could future presidents be prosecuted for the same actions?
Dr. Ryan Voris, an ABAC political science professor who specializes in elections, said, “One thing we should note, the justices did not say that everything a person does while they’re president is immune from prosecution. It’s only these official acts. So, we just need to figure out where the line is on that.”
“In my opinion,” he continued, “we’re going to see whatever the outcome of this case is—the criminal case. We’re going to see an appeal back up to the Supreme Court and get some more clarification on this, because whoever loses is going to keep appealing it up.”
Voris further said, “What it probably means is we’re going to see a lot more assertive presidents trying to get stuff done, and unfortunately, we are embedded in this time right now of polarization, and both parties know the easiest way to get stuff done is to win the White House and have the president do stuff on the president’s own.”