In their dissents from the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the court’s liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion allows for a slew of alarming scenarios.
In their dissents from the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the court’s liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion allows for a slew of alarming scenarios — including a president ordering a Navy SEAL team to « assassinate » his political rival or even poisoning one of his own cabinet members.
The high court on Monday ruled 6-3 that a president has substantial immunity for official acts that occurred during his time in office. It’s a decision that has significant implications for former President Trump, whose prosecution on charges related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged 2020 election interference spurred the Supreme Court to hear the case.
But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president « is not above the law » and immunity is only a factor when it involves an « official act » — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump’s case were « official » — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elana Kagan wrote in the primary dissent that the court’s majority opinion « makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
