Two scholars at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity poses a “direct threat” to democracy and the rule of law and raised concerns about what a second term under the former president would do. Trump could seem.
The Supreme Court handed down the 6-3 decision on Monday, ruling along ideological lines that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the essential responsibilities of their office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts. .
“I did not expect such a broad definition of absolute immunity for a president for criminal acts,” said Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. said Tuesday. “Although the court leaves many questions unresolved, it is a dramatic and impressive affirmation of broad and absolute immunity for a president.”
The decision, argued political scientist Terri Bimes of Chemerinsky and Berkeley, “placed the president largely above the law in a law that was never written into the U.S. Constitution or established in more than 200 years of legal precedent,” according to a UC Berkeley press release. .
Academics predicted that the decision could provoke a crisis in the next presidential term, warning that Trump, if re-elected in November, could pursue political opponents under new protections. Trump has repeatedly pledged to seek revenge against political opponents and those who have brought criminal charges against him and his allies.
Bimes, a scholar of the history and functioning of the US presidency, described the decision as “dangerous”.
“The decision appears to allow the president to use the power of his office to commit illegal, criminal acts,” said Bimes. “The fact that these actions are taken in the name of the presidency, that they are official acts, makes them immune to prosecution. This is really problematic.”
The academics further stated that the high court’s decision could have fundamental long-term implications for the office of the presidency, increasing its power and increasing the risk of more authoritarian leaders.
The academics’ concerns echo those of several Democrats, who have argued that this will encourage future presidents to break the law with impunity. Democrats have long argued that under the Constitution, no one — not even the president — is above the law. By ruling that Trump is protected from prosecution for certain actions, the Supreme Court violated the intentions of the nation’s founders, Democratic critics argued.
Chemerinsky pointed to a hypothetical situation raised by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, in which she suggested that Trump could use his official power to order Navy Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.
“If the president called on Navy Seals to assassinate a political rival, since he is using his power as commander in chief, that would be absolute immunity,” Chemerinsky wrote. “The president could use the Justice Department to seek revenge and engage in politically motivated prosecutions – this would be protected by absolute immunity.
“There is certainly a gray area in terms of things that are outside the scope of a president’s power,” he added. “But even there, the Supreme Court says there is presumptive absolute immunity.”
Bimes later noted that the decision suggests that courts will no longer be able to restrain a “dishonest” president.
“It’s more of a personal office. The president can use all the powers of the presidency for whatever he wants,” Bimes said. “So we really need the courts to step in to help rein in the president, to make him more accountable. Now I’m not so sure we can trust that – I’m not confident. I am concerned about our democracy because of the character of Donald Trump.”
The high court ruling gave Trump a victory as he faces a federal criminal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The ruling will likely delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether his actions on January 6, 2021 deserve protection from criminal prosecution for decisions made while in the White House.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
