Trump v. US: With Great Power Comes Great Immunity

Overview:

This article was written by Gene Healy at Cato Institute.

• Healy examines Chief Justice John Roberts' justification for granting broad criminal-process immunities to the president in the Trump v. United States case.
• Healy critiques these new immunities, arguing they pose greater risks due to potential presidential recklessness and are based on creative, and questionable, constitutional interpretation.

​

Key Quotes:

• "Chief Justice John Roberts insists that it is. In fact, the self-styled judicial 'umpire' considers the specter of presidential risk aversion grave enough to justify rewriting the rules of the game."
• "The analysis therefore must be fact specific, Roberts concludes, and may prove to be challenging."

​

What They Discuss:

• The article outlines how the new immunities protect the president by creating multiple layers of shielding from criminal prosecution for a wide range of actions.
• Roberts' opinion heavily relies on the idea that the president's role in American life and law is unique, which justifies broad immunities.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent points out that these immunities are not supported by the constitutional text, highlighting that the Framers knew how to give specific protections but did not do so for the presidency.
• Sai Prakash’s academic work is referenced to support the argument that no historical precedent or constitutional text grants the president such wide-ranging immunities.
• The potential for prosecutorial action against Trump and the implications of such immunities given his vows to prosecute political opponents are also discussed.

​

What They Recommend:

• Healy suggests that instead of the Court creating immunities, Congress should use its legislative powers to craft specific, targeted immunities if deemed necessary.
• He advocates for statutory solutions over constitutionally grounded immunities as they can be more easily modified or repealed by Congress.
• There is an implicit recommendation to avoid judicial overreach and maintain a clear separation of powers by sticking closely to the constitutional text.

​

Key Takeaways:

• The new presidential immunities are seen as dangerous because they could encourage presidential misconduct and are not clearly derived from constitutional text.
• Justice Roberts' majority opinion is characterized as a form of judicial overreach, rewriting constitutional rules without historical or textual backing.
• Sai Prakash's work reinforces that the broad immunities claimed by Roberts lack historical and textual foundation, contradicting the originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
• Prakash suggests that any needed immunities should come from legislative actions by Congress, not judicial inventions.
• The ruling could potentially allow presidents to act recklessly without fear of criminal prosecution, raising concerns about accountability and the rule of law.

​

This is a brief overview of the article by Gene Healy at Cato Institute. For complete insights, we recommend reading the full article.