02 July 2024 , 11:25
555
0
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has led to liberal justices warning that a president could order a Navy SEAL team to assassinate his political rivals with no legal consequences
In the wake of a Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity, liberal justices voiced their concerns over potential legal impunity, expressing fears regarding scenarios such as a president ordering a Navy SEAL team to "assassinate" political rivals or poison cabinet members without facing legal consequences.
The high court’s ruling on Monday, with a 6-3 majority, declared that a president possesses substantial immunity for official acts carried out during their time in office. This ruling could carry significant implications for former president Donald Trump, who is currently facing prosecution over claims connected to the January 6 Capitol attacks and alleged meddling in the 2020 elections - events which prompted the Supreme Court to consider the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion emphasised that the president "is not above the law". Nevertheless, immunity could still apply if it pertains to an "official act" The court further decided to send the case back to lower courts to ascertain whether the acts related to Trump’s case were indeed "official", a move sparking unease amongst the three dissenting justices.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan expressed dismay over the court’s broader interpretation of presidential immunity in their primary dissent. The justices cautioned that the dominant opinion "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
Sotomayor penned a fierce critique, writing: "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," adding alarming scenarios such as: "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."
She further commented: "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in Washington ( Image: AP)
According to Sotomayor, this view had "shifted irrevocably" the balance between the presidency and the American public. In her words: "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
Jackson, offering a separate dissent, included a similarly disturbing hypothetical in a footnote. She wrote: "While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death."
She added: "Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority." Sotomayor concluded her remarks and echoed Jackson by stating: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Liberal justices have warned Navy Seals could be used to kill the President’s political rivals ( Image: Corbis via Getty Images)
The majority opinion did not leave the dissents unchallenged. Roberts commented: "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."
He continued: "Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President ’above the law.’" He further argued that the dissents lacked solid reasoning and claimed their arguments essentially amounted to disregarding the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent, instead resorting to "positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ’feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.’"