Search
Items tagged with: sotomayor
Justice #Sotomayor dissent:
“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be #immune from #criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal #law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such #immunity.
…if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our #democracy, I dissent."
![In fact, the majority's dividing line between "official" and
"unofficial" conduct narrows the conduct considered "unof-ficial" almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority," he is taking official action. Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC
2023)). It then goes a step further: "In dividing official from unofticial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives." Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority's test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed "unofficial" is destined to be vanishingly small.
Ultimately, the majority pays lip service to the idea that
"[t]he President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them," ante, at 13-14, but it then proceeds to place former Presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse of official power.](https://plantroon.com/photo/preview/640/252045 "In fact, the majority's dividing line between \"official\" and
\"unofficial\" conduct narrows the conduct considered \"unof-ficial\" almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is \"not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,\" he is taking official action. Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC
2023)). It then goes a step further: \"In dividing official from unofticial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives.\" Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority's test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed \"unofficial\" is destined to be vanishingly small.
Ultimately, the majority pays lip service to the idea that
\"[t]he President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them,\" ante, at 13-14, but it then proceeds to place former Presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse of official power.")
Interestingly, in her #dissent in the #immigration case, Department of #State v. Munoz, Justice Sonia #Sotomayor says #SCOTUS’ decision will most heavily burden #SameSex couples. She cites #Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 case that established a fundamental right to same-sex #marriage.
#law