My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.
Page 14 notes that the President's official responsibilities "include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and ap- pointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States."
Page 17 states "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."
Page 26 states "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."
Right below that it clarifies
> If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.
I suggest that courts might be _reluctant_ to make such a finding with Seal Team 6 visiting their homes at 3 AM.
I pray when Trump is reelected he makes no such moves.
project 2025
This ruling is like telling a hungry leopard, "you can eat anyone except for us." The hubris of this ruling is absurd. American's President Jinping won't be a Federalist.
Absurd, to the point of being hilarious. Could a president use this (immunity and nukes) to become an absolute ruler?
Edit: a failsafe is there, see sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849357
Congress, through impeachment.
Several Congresspeople then concluded he could not be impeached because by the time they were able to consider the question, he had left office.
This ruling by SCOTUS suggests there is now no avenue to hold such a President accountable for such actions.
... and that's before we broach the question of whether "Removal from the Oval Office" is sufficient punishment for all manner of crime the President could commit from his position of power, because that is the upper limit of the effect of a Congressional impeachment. This seems to give a sitting President carte blanche to throw the Constitution in a wood-chipper if he can interpret it is within his official acts to do so.
Yes, and was impeached for that.
>Several Congresspeople then concluded he could not be impeached because by the time they were able to consider the question, he had left office.
That's how checks and balances work. They may have made that conclusion, but the impeachment carried on anyway and failed to gain the 2/3rds majority.
>This ruling by SCOTUS suggests there is now no avenue to hold such a President accountable for such actions.
It doesn't suggest that at all.
>whether "Removal from the Oval Office" is sufficient punishment for all manner of crime the President could commit from his position of power, because that is the upper limit of the effect of a Congressional impeachment.
It's removal from office AND "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.[0]" They can still be found guilty for insurrection after impeachment.
>This seems to give a sitting President carte blanche to throw the Constitution in a wood-chipper if he can interpret it is within his official acts to do so.
That's not how it works because at the end of the day the President doesn't interpret the law, and isn't shielded from impeachment and justice through state/federal courts as I outlined above. This is literally the majority opinion. Similarly, just because a military officer interprets their actions are lawful doesn't make them so.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_St...
If the president is able to bring physical power to bear, then it matters little what the law says anyway.
In the military, we have the UCMJ that allows us to prosecute those military personnel that issue illegal orders. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is a civilian, so the UCMJ doesn't apply. I always thought he would be charged under criminal law in that case, but it seems that this ruling precludes that.
"But not for this! This would be clearly corrupt!" you may say, but the decision addresses that as well; the President's motive for the "official act" cannot be introduced as evidence!
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
Motive can be used to defeat the presumptive immunity for an official act.
> Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Pre- siding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a consti- tutional and statutory duty of the Vice President.
> The indictment’s allega- tions that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the cer- tification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
They're laying out an extremely permissive standard.
Obama drone wars would be the one to look at.
The minority points out that official acts was already a defense. The majority opinion here claims that it’s an absolute immunity and even motivation is impervious to this immunity claim. This is a serious undermining of the rule of law in a substantial way and paves the way for the US to have a dictatorship at some point in the future.
It's an immunity only for official acts, not unofficial ones.
> Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial “can be difficult,” Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a president’s “official responsibilities,” “covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-s...
Basically the President has a presumption that his behavior is an official act unless it’s egregiously outside his powers but there’s also no way to really investigate it. Oh and it’s also combined with the unitary executive theory popular on the right which holds that the president basically has absolute power over all executive agencies and a growing interpretation of the powers of the president (under both parties) which is a scary scenario.
And given that the dissenting opinion from SCOTUS justices literally raises the exact scenario you’re assuming is unofficial, so dismissing it out of hand seems overly bold:
> The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
You can disagree with the dissents, but even Justice Barrett outlines some very serious problems with the reasoning in the majority opinion while Justice Thomas says they should go further and completely rule Jack Smith’s investigation unconstitutional outright.
He also passed an EO afterward which set up a legal framework retroactively justifying it.
At a certain point the "constitutionality" doesn't matter; it's hard to make a case have a meaningful outcome when the plaintiff is dead.
That said, it's obviously a false statement. By your argument, the president ordering flight 93 to be shot down on 9/11 would not be an official act. You might now retort something about extenuating circumstances, but really that would only show you to be entirely wrong about your original assertion.
I recommend you edit your posts to correct your mistake.
And as bad as today’s ruling is, I think your proposed rule would be worse because it would create tons of liability for good faith government employees.
We can’t have a world where it’s unclear if an act is official until there’s some kind of review of its outcome. The act itself has to be official (or not).
Qualified immunity is unconstitutional
What does the judge who reviews the case think?
That's literally the only thing preventing that scenario from playing out.