DeepSummary
The podcast episode revolves around a Supreme Court decision that grants sweeping immunity to presidents from criminal prosecution for actions deemed as "official acts." Mark Joseph Stern explains how the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts differentiates between official and unofficial acts, creating a murky distinction that essentially allows presidents to claim immunity for most actions under the guise of fulfilling their constitutional duties.
Constitutional law professor Corey Brettschneider highlights how this ruling represents a significant expansion of presidential power beyond previous cases like Fitzgerald v. Nixon, which dealt with civil lawsuits. He argues that the court has effectively immunized presidents from criminal prosecution for actions they claim as official, even if undertaken in bad faith or for corrupt purposes.
The discussion explores the potential implications of this decision for democracy, the balance of powers, and ongoing legal cases involving former President Trump. The ruling could shield Trump from prosecution in matters like the January 6th insurrection by allowing him to claim his actions were official attempts to prevent voter fraud, despite evidence to the contrary.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruling grants presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions deemed as "official acts" undertaken as part of their constitutional duties.
- The distinction between official and unofficial acts is murky, allowing presidents to potentially claim most actions as official to avoid legal accountability.
- The decision represents an unprecedented expansion of presidential power beyond previous understandings, potentially shielding abuses of power from legal consequences.
- The ruling could impact ongoing legal cases against former President Trump by allowing him to claim immunity for actions like the January 6th insurrection under the pretense of fulfilling his duties.
- If Trump regains the presidency, the decision could effectively end legal proceedings against him by granting immunity for any actions claimed as official.
- Constitutional law experts argue the ruling undermines checks on presidential power and the balance of powers, potentially threatening the foundations of democracy.
- The decision's lack of clear guidelines raises concerns about consistent application and the potential for future legal battles over the boundaries of presidential immunity.
- The ruling represents a significant victory for executive power and a blow to efforts to hold presidents legally accountable for potential criminal actions undertaken in office.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “What Roberts has delivered is a Ziploc bag full of muddy water, and trying to find clarity in it feels, like, impossible. And that's the whole point.“ by Mark Joseph Stern
- “They have really rewritten presidential power and aggrandize it in an extreme sense, well beyond, it's already very strong, but well beyond, beyond anything that I think could have been contemplated in the Nixon era or in recent history, really.“ by Corey Brettschneider
- “By definition, a criminal act is a bad faith act. And yet what they have said, not seemed to have said, is that even former presidents, when it comes to official acts, can't be charged with a crime, can't be indicted, and we can't bring cases against them.“ by Corey Brettschneider
- “So what you get is a big bag of slop where every single thing the president ever claims to have done because he's president gets this sweeping immunity. And whether you want to call it absolute or near absolute, in practice, it is going to prevent a jury from finding that the president committed a number of crimes because the way that he committed those crimes was by manipulating the tools of his office and then claiming that he was just acting as president so he can never, ever, ever face accountability.“ by Mark Joseph Stern
Entities
Person
Organization
Product
Concept
Book
Legal case
Episode Information
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Slate Podcasts
7/1/24