The Supreme Court defined when the president has absolute immunity, no immunity, and limited immunity dependent on the facts of the particular case. Time will tell, but the best guess is that it won’t dramatically expand presidential power. Biden should be happy because the ruling could shield him from liability for what have been arguably criminal acts outside of his constitutional authority. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:
President Joe Biden delivered an address from the White House last night on the presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court. While pledging that he will defend the rule of law, President Biden misrepresented what that law is in the aftermath of Trump v. United States. While we have often discussed false constitutional claims by the President as well as other false statements, an address of this kind is particularly concerning in misleading citizens on the meaning of one of the most important decisions in history.
As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That is not true.
The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.
Divided government is good government?
Yes we can!
There is a reason why Herr Adolf encouraged the various fiefdoms to be at odds with each other and never put anything down on paper.
The Brandonprinzip (principle) will be with crayons and coloring books?
Remember when congress (brothel) was in charge of making laws and spending the money?
Good times.
This just in from Burl Ives:
Big Rock Candy Mountain