What is presidential immunity?
The Civic Listening Corps was formed in January 2022 to give communities across the country the tools and training needed to identify and fight the misinformation we see online every day. Our goal is to use the knowledge we gather together to prevent further attempts to undermine our civic discourse.
By subscribing to our reports, sharing this post, or directing your friends and family to civiclistening.org, YOU can make a difference against the spread of online misinformation.
What is presidential immunity?
Recent discussions on presidential immunity have generated misconceptions regarding its scope and limitations. Presidential immunity, as established through legal precedent and constitutional interpretation, is not absolute. It is derived from the separation of powers doctrine outlined in Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which delineates the powers and responsibilities of the President. This doctrine balances the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
The development of the presidential immunity doctrine has been shaped by key legal cases and constitutional interpretations. While the president's authority is significant, it is not without limits. For instance, in cases such as United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court affirmed that the president could be subject to judicial processes, rejecting claims of absolute immunity in criminal proceedings. Similarly, the Court's decision in Trump v. Vance extended this principle to state criminal subpoenas. It is important to note that this protection does not extend to actions stemming from unofficial conduct. The courts have yet to determine whether this immunity applies to former presidents for actions related to their official conduct while in office. However, like sitting presidents, they remain liable for unofficial conduct occurring during or after their presidency. Additionally, while the President may invoke executive privilege to withhold certain information, this privilege is subject to judicial review and must be balanced against the public interest in transparent governance.
What are we hearing about presidential immunity in Trump’s case?
During the U.S. Supreme Court hearings on Donald Trump's assertion of presidential immunity from prosecution, contrasting viewpoints emerged regarding the implications of such immunity. Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, warned of potential abuse by political adversaries, suggesting that without immunity, future presidents could face the threat of prosecution while in office, leading to manipulation and extortion. On the other side, Michael Dreeben, representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, highlighted the extreme scope of immunity sought by Trump, emphasizing that it would shield former presidents from criminal liability for serious offenses such as bribery, treason, and murder.
What about past presidents?
Past actions of presidents such as Barack Obama and George W. Bush have recently been compared to Trump and his actions on January 6. Sauer presented theoretical situations where former U.S. presidents could face legal charges for their official decisions while in office. He asked whether George W. Bush might be indicted for impeding an official process by purportedly deceiving Congress to support the Iraq war, or if Barack Obama could be accused of homicide for authorizing drone strikes on American citizens overseas, or if Biden could be prosecuted for encouraging unlawful immigration through his border policies. Sauer asserted that none of these scenarios would result in charges, affirming that such actions by former presidents were legally permissible.
The immunity granted to past and present presidents from criminal or civil prosecution for their official acts is essential to ensuring that presidents can fulfill their duties without fear of legal reprisal. The ongoing case involving Donald Trump hinges on whether his actions on January 6 fall within his official powers as president, potentially qualifying for immunity. Central to this debate is the interpretation of the term "official act," which encompasses decisions or actions undertaken in the capacity of a public official or in a position of trust or authority. Understanding whether Trump's actions on January 6 constitute official acts is crucial in determining his eligibility for immunity under the law. However, Trump seems to argue for absolute immunity regardless of whether his actions were official, at odds with the presidential immunity clause, American principles, and legal precedent.