Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
As president, Richard Nixon used the FBI, CIA, and a group of White House “advisors” (the now infamous “Plumbers”) to spy on and sabotage his political opponents.
Nixon could not have been prosecuted for any of these abuses of power because Monday’s Supreme Court ruling gives the president a presumption of immunity for his “official” actions, one constitutional law expert told Business Insider.
“Most, if not all, of these actions would fall into the category of ‘putatively official,'” said Michelle Paradis, a lawyer who teaches national security and constitutional law at Columbia Law School.
“I don’t see how you can prove that’s not true when you’re prohibited from any investigation into the president’s motives,” Paradis added.
According to Monday’s ruling, “the Court cannot inquire into the President’s motives” when determining whether his actions were official or informal.
Paradis said that after taking office for his second term, Trump now has the freedom to instruct others to deviate and break the law in any way he has already expressed a desire to do so.
Paradis said the president can send in the military to break up protests or deport immigrants, he can fire civil servants he disagrees with, he can disband agencies he doesn’t like, like the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency, and he can pardon anyone who causes trouble by carrying out his orders.
And by calling these actions “official,” he can do all of the above without being prosecuted, Paradis said.
“Or consider the subject matter of President Trump’s first impeachment,” the law professor added.
The new immunity protected by the Supreme Court “could have allowed Rudy Giuliani to more clearly instruct the Ukrainians to withhold all aid unless they revealed dirty information about Biden,” he said.
“And he can instruct his subordinates not just to ‘avoid’ the law but to actively break it, with the promise of amnesty if they do,” Paradis added. “And he can do so knowing that under current court rules, the chances of him ever being prosecuted are extremely slim.”
This would give Trump even more power to push legal boundaries further, agreed Neama Rahamani, a former federal prosecutor and president and co-founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers.
“If Trump believes he can get away with it, he will have more power to push the boundaries of the law and go after his rivals,” Rahamani told Business Insider.
“Trump has always pushed the boundaries of the law, but now, if he is given at least some immunity, he will likely do so even more,” Rahmani added.
“It’s really surprising that this opinion came just three days before the Fourth of July, when the Declaration of Independence was approved by the King,” said Cliff Sloan, a Georgetown University law professor and constitutional law expert.
“And this decision gives the president more king-like powers than any other decision in the history of the Supreme Court,” Sloan added.
“It’s a sad day for our country,” Sloan said. “It’s a sad day for our constitutional democracy. It’s a sad day for the Supreme Court.”
Sloan said he found it particularly disturbing that the majority decision made no mention at all of the now-infamous “SEAL Team Six” hypothetical, which asked whether a president could enjoy official acts immunity if, as commander in chief, he acted in official duties by ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent.
Sloan said that when Trump’s lawyers first raised the possibility of immunity under those circumstances, “everyone was terrified.”
But in her dissent on Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor again complained that Trump or any future president could order a political assassination without punishment simply by claiming it was an official act, but “the majority did not disagree, which is really remarkable,” Sloan said.
“It’s just incredible that we now have a ruling that gives the president widespread immunity for truly dangerous and nefarious conduct,” he added.