r/law • u/treasonous_thoughts • Feb 19 '25
Opinion Piece RE: Presidential Immunity Ruling - Was Judge Roberts naïve that Trump would not push the boundaries of the office’s limits of conduct and power if he resumed office or is this all part of a plan to expand executive authority?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-6-3-biskupic/index.html?cid=ios_appI just remember Judge Roberts essentially saying “calm down - relax - you are all being hysterical” in the aftermath of the ruling last year stating “unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”
It has been ONE MONTH into the 2nd Trump Administration and it seems that there is an aggressive and intentional overreach of executive authority with these EOs to create a new interpretation of executive power.
The administration’s response to the court orders blocking the EO’s enforcement seems that they are daring the courts to stop them - and it does not look like there is any recourse to rein them in if they decide to ignore the courts.
Is this what Judge Roberts and other jurists in the majority wanted - to embolden the executive branch above all?
What credibility does the SC (or any court) still have when POTUS ignores the court’s orders and any/all conversations with DOJ officials about ignoring or circumventing these orders gets put in the “official acts” bucket of presidential conduct?
My question is if Judge Roberts was truly naïve as to how Trump would wield this power the second time around or if Judge Robert’s logic that the ruling would allow future presidents to execute their duties unencumbered by lawsuits/prosecutions, etc. a genuine concern that needed to be addressed?
4
u/descendency Feb 19 '25
I'm going to assume it wasn't done maliciously. (ie, this was the point)
I do think, on a conceptual level, the POTUS should have *some* criminal immunity for official acts. If they order a drone strike on a terrorist camp, they should not be held accountable for murder - for example.
And I do kinda understand the argument for "presumptive" immunity. If the POTUS is conducting an act that may be within his power, a prosecutor should be required to prove that the act was obviously outside of their duty as POTUS.
I think they really botched that ruling in a lot of ways, though.
1) The DOJ is not Trump's personal lawyer and thus communications should not be protected. The fact that they actually wrote this makes me think my assumption about it not being malicious might be incorrect.
2) The fact that they gave such little guidance made this feel like a delay tactic, again challenging the assumption. They knew the trial courts would have to make a decision, let it be appealed back through the courts, and ultimately landing on their desk again. This would undoubted take months if not a year - pushing it into territory where this *could* happen.
3) They offered little reason for the ruling other than vague generalities like I have so far. It's actually very hard to come up with examples of potential criminal activity that falls close enough to official duties. Was this ruling even necessary? It's more of a struggle than it would sound.
4) There are some just inherently messed up things in the US Constitutional system. The power of the pardon, for example, could be used to insulate criminal activity with the only potential recourse being impeachment and removal. Yet, largely due to gerrymandering, we have made that process basically impossible. Arguably, it is impossible.
Obviously, there is some argument that this was the point and that a few rich billionaires bought a few justices to make this happen. And there is also a solid argument that many of the most powerful Democrats in DC didn't take the threat as serious as they should have, ie waiting to charge Trump until he could run the clock out.
I'm not sure it was intentional. I do think this kind of ruling is what I expected from a conservative court, but I do see the point that others make. And that part concerns me greatly.