Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently delivered a significant ruling granting Presidents "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution related to their core constitutional powers and official acts. This decision provides substantial legal relief to former President Donald Trump amid a criminal case alleging his involvement in efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election results. The 6-3 conservative-liberal split in favor of Trump's immunity appeal the contentious nature of the ruling, as Trump prepares for potential candidacy in the upcoming November presidential election. 

What is Presidential Absolute Immunity? 

• Presidential absolute immunity protects sitting presidents from civil lawsuits related to their official duties.  
• This idea comes from the need to let presidents do their job without constant fear of being sued. 
• The Supreme Court has said that while this immunity is broad, it's not unlimited. Presidents can't just do anything they want without consequences. 
• In 1867, the case set the stage for balancing presidential power with accountability. It showed that courts can still look at some things presidents do. 
• In a landmark case Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Court made it clear that presidents can't be sued for civil damages for their official actions.  
  • This helps protect the president's ability to make decisions without worrying about lawsuits. 
• However, this immunity only applies to civil cases.  
  • It doesn't protect presidents from criminal charges or investigations. 
  • Presidents have to follow certain court orders and can be involved in criminal proceedings. 

Is Presidential Absolute Immunity Supported by the Constitution? 

• The idea is to strike a balance between letting presidents do their job effectively and making sure they're not completely above the law. 
• The Constitution doesn't directly say anything about presidential immunity. 
  • It says that the President has executive power and lists their duties. 
• The idea of separation of powers is important.  
  • It means the different parts of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) should be separate but work together.  
  • Courts often think about this when deciding cases about presidential immunity. 
• Court cases have helped define what presidential immunity means.  
  • For example, in a case involving Trump, the Court said presidents aren't completely immune from state criminal investigations. 
  • The Court has also said that presidents can be sued for things they did before becoming president or for personal actions not related to their job as president. 
  • When deciding about presidential immunity, courts must balance letting the President do their job with making sure they're not above the law. 
• The main idea is that even the President has to follow the law, but they also need some protection to govern effectively. 

What is the Limit of the President's Immunity? 

• The Supreme Court has tried to draw a clear line between what a president can and can't be held legally responsible for while in office. 
• In case of Clinton v. Jones, explain the difference.  
  • It showed that presidents aren't completely protected from all legal action. 
• The main idea is:  
  • Presidents can't be sued for things they do as part of their official job. 
  • But they can be held responsible for personal actions, even if these happen while they're president. 
  • To decide if something is part of the president's official duties, courts look at whether it's closely related to what the Constitution says a president should do. 
• Examples of what's protected:  
  • Decisions about national security 
  • Foreign policy choices 
  • Carrying out laws 
• Examples of what's not protected:  
  • Personal behavior that has nothing to do with being president 
  • Actions taken as a private citizen, not as president 
  • The goal is to let presidents do their job without fear of lawsuits, but also to make sure they're not above the law for their personal actions. 

Can a Sitting President Be Required to Participate in Legal Proceedings? 

• This is a complex legal issue that has evolved over time, balancing presidential duties with the need for legal accountability. 
• An important early example is from 1807, when Chief Justice ordered President Thomas Jefferson to provide documents for a trial.  
  • This showed that even presidents aren't completely above the law. 
• More recently, in the case Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court ruled that sitting presidents aren't totally immune from state criminal investigations. 
• The main ideas from these cases are:  
  • Presidents do have some special protections to help them do their job. 
  • But these protections aren't absolute – presidents can still be required to participate in legal processes in some cases. 
• Courts try to balance two important things:  
  • Letting the president focus on running the country without constant legal interruptions. 
  • Making sure the president isn't above the law and can be held accountable like any other citizen. 
• The key point is that while presidents have some legal protections for their official duties, they can still be compelled to participate in court proceedings, especially for actions not related to their job as president. 
• This approach aims to maintain the separation of powers – keeping the different parts of government in check while allowing each to function effectively. 

Why Is Presidential Immunity Considered Important? 

• The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, grants presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to their "core constitutional powers" and "official acts." 
• This immunity extends to actions on the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties, if not "manifestly or palpably" beyond the president's authority. 
• The court ruled that Trump's actions involving the Department of Justice fall within his "exclusive constitutional authority" and are thus protected by absolute immunity. 
• Other allegations, including interactions with the Vice President and public statements, were sent back to the District Court for case-by-case decisions, with the Supreme Court suggesting these actions may also be immune from prosecution. 
• The ruling aims to allow presidents to take "bold and unhesitating action" without worry of potential legal consequences stemming from their official decisions. 

Should the president be subject to the same legal standards as other citizens? 

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, authored a strong dissent against the majority opinion in this hypothetical case.  
• The dissent focuses on several key points: 
  • Fundamental principle challenged: Justice Sotomayor argues that the majority's decision undermines a core tenet of American democracy - that no one is above the law. She asserts that this ruling effectively places the President beyond the reach of criminal law for actions taken while in office, even if those actions are corrupt or illegal. 
  • Criticism of the majority's reasoning: The dissent characterizes the majority opinion as creating immunity through "brute force" rather than basing it on solid constitutional grounds. Sotomayor contends that there is no firm basis for such broad immunity in the Constitution's text, historical precedent, or previous court decisions. 
  • Distinction between civil and criminal cases: A key argument in the dissent is that the majority incorrectly equates civil and criminal immunity. Sotomayor points out that criminal cases involve a greater public interest and have built-in safeguards that make them less likely to interfere with executive functions. These include the high standards for bringing charges and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof required for conviction. 
  • Implications of the ruling: The dissent warns of the far-reaching consequences of this decision. By granting what Sotomayor describes as either presumptive or absolute immunity for official acts, the ruling potentially shields even the most corrupt uses of presidential power from criminal prosecution. 
  • Comparison to previous cases: Sotomayor criticizes the majority for extending the civil immunity granted in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) to criminal cases involving a president's official acts. She argues that this extension is unwarranted and ignores crucial differences between civil and criminal proceedings. 
  • Concern for democratic principles: Throughout the dissent, there's an underlying concern for the preservation of democratic norms and the rule of law. Sotomayor suggests that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future presidents to act with impunity while in office. 

How Might the Presidential Immunity Ruling Affect The 2024 Election? 

• Trial continuation: The Supreme Court's decision allows Trump's trial at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to proceed. However, Judge Tanya Chutkan will now need to reassess the specific allegations against Trump in light of the newly established precedent on presidential immunity. 
• Timeline: According to the Associated Press report you mentioned, Judge Chutkan intends to give both sides at least three months to prepare for the trial. This extended timeline makes it highly unlikely that a verdict will be reached before the November 2024 elections. 
• Existing conviction: You've noted that Trump has already been convicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money payment case. This existing conviction could potentially impact his campaign, regardless of the outcome of the current trial. 
• Potential future legal question: If Trump wins the November election while having one or more convictions on his record, a new legal question may arise: whether a sitting president can pardon himself. This would be an unprecedented situation in American legal and political history. 
• Impact on the election: The ongoing legal proceedings and their outcomes could significantly influence public opinion and potentially affect the election results, though the exact impact is difficult to predict. 

Conclusion  

The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has far-reaching implications for American democracy and the upcoming 2024 election. While it aims to protect presidents' ability to act decisively, it also raises concerns about accountability and the principle that no one is above the law. As the legal proceedings continue, their impact on public opinion and the election remains uncertain, potentially setting the stage for unprecedented legal questions if Trump were to win while facing criminal charges.