‘You Gave us a Very Hard Question’: Justice Gorsuch Explains Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that presidents had full immunity from prosecution of “official” acts. However, “unofficial” or private acts could be prosecuted.

According to the court, all presidents have partial immunity from prosecution. No official presidential act can be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, many legal experts, as well as liberals, blasted the move, as they warned that this could make a president a king.

“You gave us a very hard question,” Gorsuch explained. “It’s the first time in American history that one presidential administration was seeking to bring criminal charges against a predecessor. We had to go back and look at what sources were available to us.”

This case mainly focused on presidential immunity from civil liability when it came to actions done while in office and acting as president.

The Nixon case avoided this. However, in the Trump case, special counsel Jack Smith claimed that future presidents were likely to face politically motivated prosecutions. The Supreme Court found this unpersuasive.

He said, “There are some things we can agree on. You can impeach a president if he does something unlawful. You can enjoin or stop the conduct of his officials. You can go to court and get an injunction. Those are two things we can all agree on.”

“We also agree that no man is above the law in his private conduct,” Gorsuch added. “Even a president can be prosecuted for speeding. His private conduct, he is like everyone else.”

However, Gorsuch seems to see things differently, and still believes that a president’s private conduct and official conduct are very different.

It was found that the Justices were split along ideological lines in this case. However, Chief Justice John Roberts did not attempt to find some sort of middle ground to keep both sides happy.

“Why? Because that would chill him from exercising the powers and duties of a president while he is president,” Gorsuch explained. “He would be overwhelmed. His political enemies would simply bring suits against him forever more. The court held that about 50 years ago.”

This is especially true as the Conservatives voted in favor, while the Liberals voted against it. This all goes to show the power of the Presidency.

However, this is not explicitly mentioned in the 18th-century document that laid out the American form of government. There is still some debate over whether immunity is explicit in the Constitution.

Gorsuch stated that they used past legal precedent to make this ruling, arguing, “All the court did in this case was simply apply that same precedent and idea to the criminal context.”

This is why careful decisions need to be made when deciding whether to impose a new law.

Many critics of the court have stated that the court needs to be reformed, as support for the court has hit a new low among Americans.

This is helped by the fact that the Supreme Court has a Conservative majority: six of the nine Justices are Conservative, and the other three are Liberal.

The Justices don’t need to follow it as it isn’t enforceable, but they can use it for guidance. If the code of ethics were to be enforced, this would mean that they would have to consider it when making decisions.

She said that the current code of ethics isn’t robust enough and that in other cases the rules are enforced, whereas the Supreme Court ones aren’t. She believes sanctions need to be put in place for violating the rules, but not everyone agrees.

According to Gorsuch, the Supreme Court is the envy of the rest of the world, and its independence means that people are entitled to a fair hearing.

The hope is that imposing this rule will enable a more balanced approach to the court and will have fewer severe repercussions for generations to come than if the same Justices were to remain in power.

The Trump v. United States case will be sent to a lower court to determine whether he can be immune from prosecution. The judge will decide whether Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results was an official or unofficial act.

Schumer wants to introduce legislation, dubbed the No Kings Act, to prevent Presidents from having complete immunity for criminal activity. The law would also assert that the President could be tried in a court of law if necessary.

After the immunity ruling was announced, Biden said, “This court is being used to weaponize an extreme and unchecked agenda.”