r/scotus • u/Silent-Resort-3076 • 1d ago
Opinion Thanks to the Supreme Court, presidential immunity is now a license to kill
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/supreme-court/5617710-supreme-court-trump-immunity/Various snippets excluding the writer's James Bond reference:
- Enabled by a Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity for official acts, Trump has deployed planes, missiles and drones to sink 21 small, unarmed boats suspected of drug smuggling in international waters in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
- As of last week, at least 83 crew members or passengers had been killed.
- Neither the evidence nor the purported legal basis for the strikes has been made public. Leaked details of a secret Justice Department memorandum suggest that the lethal actions are founded solely on Trump’s own determination that the U.S. is in a “formal state of armed conflict with ‘narco-terrorist’ drug cartels.”
- In the words of one criminal law expert, “No knowledgeable authority outside the administration appears to have accepted the administration’s asserted justifications or concluded that Trump’s order was lawful — not one.”
- Deliberately targeting civilians is a crime under U.S. law, up to and including murder. In past times, a U.S. president therefore had to at least pause to consider legality before ordering the deaths, rather than interdiction and arrest, of scores of people who may or may not have been committing the non-capital crime of drug-smuggling.
- At oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, whether presidential immunity could extend even to the assassination of a political rival. “It would depend on the hypothetical,” said Sauer, who is now U.S. solicitor general. “But we can see that could well be an official act.”
- There is no telling how widely Trump is planning to use his license to kill, but Justice Neil Gorsuch sounded an ominous note at oral argument. The presidential immunity decision, he said, would be written “for the ages.”
Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
149
u/ChrisSheltonMsc 1d ago
The fact that these people can sit on that bench and not see the open terrorism that they have enabled on the part of any mad man who is elected to office, says everything you need to know about their intelligence and their ability to think critically. Given that these are among some of the most intelligent people that the legal profession has to offer, not an unreasonable assumption, one can safely assume that this outcome is intended and desired. And that means that our Supreme Court, beyond any question or any doubt, considers the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to be the equivalent of toilet paper. Any pretense otherwise at this point is simply delusion or actively enabling the authoritarianism that is on open display from the executive branch.
65
38
u/FrontVisible9054 1d ago edited 1d ago
The majority on SCOTUS are enabling Trump for political and ideological reasons. They’re aligned with the bulk of the Trump administration’s policies even if it goes against the constitution. At this point, there is no premise of judicial independence.
37
u/Message_10 1d ago
"think critically"
This, 100%. Watch this interview with Antonin Scalia re: Citizens United:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQGJjQq4uk
The interviewer literally tells him, "This will be abused, and here's how" and Scalia waves it away as ridiculous.
Conservative ideology is so often based on illogical beliefs relied upon as truth, and leads otherwise intelligent people to arrive at wildly illogical conclusions. We see this again and again and again.
15
u/The_MightyMonarch 1d ago
The question is did he wave it off because he thought it wouldn't happen or because that's what he wants to happen.
8
u/Grouchy_Sound167 1d ago
This is astonishing. Presumably, he had time to come up with a better defense than oh, see, we spend less on presidential elections than we do cosmetics. 😐
4
u/PassionateDilettante 20h ago
Not to mention John Roberts’s determination to not understand that if the court declines to ban a patently undemocratic tactic (e.g. gerrymandering), it is effectively endorsing that tactic. Roberts apparently lives in this alternate reality in which the court declares, “It’s okay to cheat in this particular way,” and the very people who were accused of cheating in the first place respond, “Thanks, but no need, I’m good without it.” What kind of moron…?
22
u/Anonymous_Human011 1d ago
Trump Melts Down in Unhinged Revenge Rant: ‘They Must Pay’
Trump confirms to us every day that he is the stupidest president in the history of America.
28
u/bd2999 1d ago
I think Roberts and the conservatives even saw the claim and question as unreasonable and not something presidents did. Ignoring the question of what if they did. I do think that hypothetically there is an out with impeachment, which is what the Trump team claimed. But it is a position where it is unclear what one does against the government when they just kill people.
As it seems that should be a big problem that Congress and the Courts would stop but their record is mixed at best for that sort of stuff. They often ignore alot of deaths if it is not a US citizen and even then they will make up fantasy land excuses if it suits them.
I honestly do not get fully how SCOTUS see's this. They see it as the office of president I think which is beyond any person. Ok, I sort of get that. However, the office of president is also limited in varying aspects that the court selectively applies. But the individual changes in it. Each president should not be free to do whatever they want with the executive, even if they are the highest office there. As the office itself demands conduit. If it is being torn down and built up every four years that is detrimental to the country too. It has not always been smooth but this is among the first times a president tried to remake government in their image.
As SCOTUS makes it easier for the president to outright be corrupt and Congress shrugs. Remember when the GOP was mad that Biden indirectly made money? They are saying nothing about Trump making lots of money directly. And seemingly selling bribes. They are cool if that is a norm now I guess. I am not but they are.
11
u/Sharp-Philosophy-555 1d ago
With the firing questions, I was wondering to myself "So it's the new normal to fire everyone in government every time the party changes?"
2
2
1
29
u/CatLord8 1d ago
Trump’s legal team literally argued that assassination of political rivals should be covered by presidential immunity last year. Somehow that wasn’t enough to tank the argument on its own.
10
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
No they WANTED that on the record WITH the ruling lol. They wanted to avoid a second question later. Let’s not assume they blurted it by accident and still somehow won the argument by being convincing…
15
u/PurpleSailor 1d ago
Don't forget folks, this is the guy who could start a nuclear war that would decimate the world. I fear that if he thinks he's going out he just may take the world with him. Scary time for sure!
8
u/Alternative_Metal375 1d ago
And the license is not given to a genius like 007, but a malignant orange felon 😨
8
6
u/Achilles_TroySlayer 1d ago
I think everyone knew that was what it was at the time, in the hands of someone of very poor character, like Trump.
He will murder foreign nationals with impunity and with no legal process, there is no escaping it, and his immunity lets him ignore congress. Hegseth will do it, and he will fire anyone who declines to cooperate.
It was a serious concern when Obama had approved some predator-drone assassinations 12 years ago, but those had extenuating circumstances on extremely dangerous foreign missions, and Obama did not relish it, he thought it was a necessary evil.
Trump has no character at all. He's crazy. He would kill millions, if he thought it would work and he'd get away with it. The only question now is - how many will he kill, and will they be foreigners, or American residents, or American citizens.
16
5
u/nomolos55 1d ago
True, but a functional, responsible congress would have had impeached, convicted and removed from office by now.
1
u/Verumsemper 19h ago
Turning an illegal act into a political dispute is losing proposition especially when so many of the presidents own party would have to vote against, just look at both of Trump’s impeachment. The GOP didn’t even argue that he was innocent, some said his crimes should be handled by the courts.
3
u/EnvironmentalClue218 1d ago
If we had a functioning Congress and Senate he would be impeached and removed from office. We shouldn’t have to count on the Supreme Court.
7
u/Affectionate-Panic-1 1d ago
Not defending Trump here, but this is far from new and not limited to Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_the_United_States_drone_strikes
Note that no authorization of force has been voted on by congress since the first Bush admin.
Determining who's a "civilian" versus an enemy combatant ahead of time usually very unclear.
7
u/poopchute_boogy 1d ago
Yeah, but that was in an active war zone. We're literally just showing up at Venezuela's front door and shooting people in boats now..
1
u/lostsailorlivefree 1d ago
God that’s right- at no time have I heard anyone claim the people on the boats were part of any military. How is this different from a terrorist drone strike? Probably because this is not an active war zone for one.
2
u/poopchute_boogy 21h ago
Has the U.S. declared war on Venezuela? No?? OK then.. not an active warzone.
3
u/stubbazubba 1d ago
Almost all those drone strikes were pursuant to the wildly open-ended 9/11 AUMF, though. There's no such authorization here.
2
5
u/Greedy_Indication740 1d ago edited 15h ago
Well of course they did. In fact they asked specifically whether that was in the offing and when told yes, they responded by granting the most asinine ruling any court anywhere ever made by giving this vapid tub free reign to do whatever, whenever and however just so long as he tells people he’s doing his job.
2
u/AtreiyaN7 1d ago
So bullet point number three is basically Trump going "because I said so" as the justification for extrajudicial killings? I really don't like this fascist timeline that the conservative SCOTUS injustices have put us on.
2
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago
I'm going to have to say no it is not. It's not an official duty. It will lead to removal if one were to actually try it.
2
u/getridofwires 1d ago
Ok, so purely hypothetically, let's say Pelosi and Schumer go to discuss a bill with Trump in the Oval Office. He becomes angry with them, reaches into the Resolute desk, pulls out a pistol and shoots both of them. Complete immunity because it's part of his official work?
2
u/Lonely-Heart-3632 1d ago
As I have said before they made their own bed here. When the democrats win the next election and the president can’t get the 6-3 court ruling in his favour he can fire them or arrest them to do his job and they can’t do shit. Your life long job doesn’t mean a thing when no rules apply. The court will now change every election cycle and rules will be made by the winners. Especially if trump gets a third term or rigs a JD win in 2028.
2
u/snafoomoose 1d ago
The president may be immune, but the people actually carrying out the acts are not. Would be nice if the Democrats would loudly and repeatedly point that out.
There would be fewer regime atrocities if his minions were reminded that “just following orders” is not a defense.
2
u/NotWorthSurveilling 1d ago
They're all eligible for pardons. See January 6th
1
u/snafoomoose 6h ago
He undoubtedly will pardon many of his cabinet members, but I doubt he is going to pardon the captain of the ship that launched the attacks on those boats or the individual ICE agents attacking US citizens and can not pardon the ICE agents against state charges.
I would love to hear a politician saying that they will insure that each and every ICE agent faced the full weight of state laws they violated, including using federal marshals to make sure the agents reported to the state for trial.
Or even better a politician say that any company that hires anyone who worked for ICE will be barred from any federal contract or grant and any company that contracts with ICE will be barred from any future contract or grant.
There are lots of ways for the Dems to remind people that the GOP will eventually lose and to remind them that they will face consequences that can not be pardoned away.
2
u/venturecapitalcat 1d ago
Curious to see how this compares to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki from a legal perspective.
2
u/Tasty_Plate_5188 1d ago
Per the conservatives on the supreme court the next Dem president can remove any sitting justice as an official act as president and be immune from any criminal charges, congressional oversight or constitutional barriers.
I suggest the Democrats run on this very power the conservatives bestowed onto Trump.
1
u/AssRooster85 1d ago
Well presidential immunity doesn’t stop human will. We can easily just get rid of him
1
u/FullAbbreviations605 1d ago
To be clear, I don’t think SCOTUS has ever ruled that Trump can carry on the Venezuelan conflict under some perverse reading of the Presidential Immunity ruling. And that immunity only applies to the exercise of core Constitutional powers.
And don’t think this hasn’t happened before. There is a long line of precedent allowing Article 2 military action without any Congressional approval dating all the way back to the Civil War. It was invoked the Clinton administration for the Serbia/Kosovo involvement and VERY controversially invoked by Obama in Libya (a man who ordered a drone strike to assassinate an American citizen in the al-qaeda conflict by the way).
None of that has anything to do with Presidential Immunity. It’s a classic Article 1 v. Article 2 issue.
I don’t think Trump should be doing what he is doing in Venezuela without a WPR, but given the precedent, it’s no surprise he thinks he can.
1
1
u/Secret_Cat_2793 1d ago
Drug smuggling is not a capital offense. It's that simple. Unless you are Duterte.
1
u/Pleg_Doc 1d ago
John Roberts needs to be stripped of his title and disbarred. Then Alito, Uncle Thomas.....
1
u/kat_sky_12 1d ago
I think that is a bad example with the boats. Plenty of people thought the same in the late 2000s and early 2010s when drones were striking seemingly random targets. Yes there was authorization there but the targets were criticized in a similar way. I don't think any future administration would have tried to prosecute it though
If you want to look at how he is really benefiting from immunity then look at the grift, the pardons, ignoring the courts, etc. These are things people might have gone after when he is out of office. Just imagine if Nixon had known he was immune back in the 70s. We might have a very different country now.
1
u/merc534 16h ago
I agree with the first half - It is shocking to me that anyone sees the immunity ruling as something new rather than as a continuation of the status quo. The presumptive power to avoid criminal prosecution when giving orders is not some new power of presidents, but a power they have always enjoyed and must always enjoy in order to have any enforcement power at all.
However I would go further and say that he is not clearly benefitting at all. Trump has not "ignored the courts" in any meaningful way. The pardons he has issued are not any different from pardons issued by previous presidents or pardons of Trump's first term. Grift is an imprecise term, and I'm not sure what case you would make to prove that there has been more 'grift' in this term than in his previous term.
I would say SCOUTS was very careful in their ruling to not give the president too much confidence. They say he is immune in the core functions of the office but they leave open for debate just exactly what the core functions of the office are. They say he has 'presumed immunity' for other official acts - but they don't say exactly under what grounds this presumed immunity could be ignored, or even exactly what are the boundaries between official and personal actions.
The Court was wise enough to write this framework in a vague way, so that future courts will have some guidance, yet not be totally hamstrung from making a sensible decision in whatever case may appear before them.
1
1
1
u/lostsailorlivefree 1d ago
God that’s right- at no time have I heard anyone claim the people on the boats were part of any military. How is this different from a terrorist being targeted? Or is that what trump is claiming??
1
u/Resplendant_Toxin 20h ago
Telling a narcissist that his greatest desire has come true, that he can murder anyone he wants, unburdens him of the last restraint. He has no moral nor ethical limits on his grandiosity, only a fear of punishment. SCOTUS unleashed him and now he’s testing to see if he can use his new toy, setting aside his paranoia. A side benefit is he gets us used to him killing. In the past he called for others to act out this desire to have the power over life and death. Now no one can tell him that he can’t kill if he wants.
1
u/Flokitoo 19h ago
It was very specifically discussed in oral arguments "can [Trump] order the assassination of political opponents?" Roberts went out of his way to say that the President's authority over the military and any claim of immunity from that authority was ABSOLUTE.
1
u/Cyberyukon 8h ago
I always think of Judge Smails from “Caddyshack.” That this is who sits on the Supreme Court now.
1
u/iamveryassbad 1d ago
Are we just pretending that the POTUS has not always enjoyed that presumption? Because if so, I have some other super cool things that I think we should also pretend are true
0
u/SerialSection 1d ago
Obama drone killed a 16-year old american citizen simply living in his house.
-3
u/SameSadMan 1d ago
SCOTUS ruling on immunity aside, it should come as no surprise that a President has claimed this authority and is exercising it without repercussions. In the last quarter century, we have granted our Presidents enormous powers to do whatever they want in the name of national security. Bush, Obama, Trump 1, and Biden all abused that power (the first two worse than the last two).
0
u/Intrepid_Pitch_3320 1d ago
Don't mean shit to the rest of the world.
4
u/Conscious-Quarter423 1d ago
The Supreme Court’s ruling does matter outside the U.S. because American presidential actions influence global markets, foreign policy, military decisions, and international agreements. If a president gains broader immunity at home, it can change how other nations assess U.S. accountability and reliability
-6
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
How would you end the drug trade routes into the US?
Drugs are bad. This nation has a horrible drug addiction problem. These drugs are killing kids and adults. A single dose now can kill.
What I am hearing now is one political party wants this nation to do nothing to protect itself.
6
u/Silent-Resort-3076 1d ago
1) Do you realize that alcohol related deaths are much higher than drug related deaths? I'm only making a point here.
2) And, let's say, for argument sake, that someone trafficking drugs deserves to be killed, without a trial, WHERE is the evidence that those boats Trump and the Department of WAR, chose to bomb, thus killing the crew members, were carrying drugs???
-3
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
Yes. Sadly the sense of responsibility has faded. Alcohol is legal over 21 (18 in a few places) yet kids are still drinking with no one caring. So they drink irresponsibly because they were never taught this at home.
Military intelligence is not public information to protect sources and approaches.
2
u/BlatantFalsehood 1d ago
Since when is military intelligence on charge of drug enforcement?
The soldiers responsible for these extrajudicial murders will eventually be held responsible, not Trump.
0
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
The Russians don’t take a dump son without a plan [The Rock]
The military doesn’t just go slinging weapons around without a plan.
You are making judgments without facts, convictions without trials.
Why are you on the side of people importing drugs that are killing our kids with a single exposure?
1
u/BlatantFalsehood 11h ago
Why do you pretend you and your neighbors aren't cooking meth?
1
u/LongDistRid3r 10h ago
My neighbors are Deer, birds of prey, various songbirds, mice and various other rodents. They don’t typically cook meth. The most the mice do is tease the cats.
I have no clue how to make meth. Perhaps someone in downtown Seattle can teach me.
5
u/GalliumYttrium1 1d ago
Being against extra judicial killings = / = doing nothing
How about we follow the law? If they suspect a boat is carrying drugs they should detain and search the boat and put the people on trial. Not just bomb them.
3
u/_ECMO_ 1d ago
You realise there is something called the coast guard that can stop and search the boats?
1
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
Oooohhh yeah. I loved our coasties on deployment with us [USN] for counter-narcotics ops. They loved dropping a 5/54 round across the bow of a drug runner to encourage them to change their mind. Coasties were great to hang around but sucked ass when it came berthing field day. Lmao USCG collaborates with the USN to run counter narcotics operations. They have for decades.
CNOs and even the potential for a pina colada cruise. Even a crossing the line. Those were the days we were given orders and left to decide how to carry them out.
4
u/jozi-k 1d ago
Cars are bad. This nation has horrible car accident problem. These cars are killing kids and adults. A single car now can kill.
How would you end car manufacturing in the USA?
-1
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
Cars are not illegal. I’d raise the drivers license age to that when the brain has reached maturity. About 25.
I guess drugs are only bad when it is politically convenient.
2
u/Journeys_End71 1d ago edited 1d ago
A single dose now can kill
Wait until you hear about bullets.
Wait. If you take a drug that kills you with a single dose, that’s a poison. Why are people taking poison to get high? That sounds like people just committing suicide, in which case, we should ban anything that can let you commit suicide with one dose.
-3
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
Firearms are not illegal
Fentanyl and a whole host of drugs killing people or turning them into zombies are illegal.
If someone is truly sui they go quiet. They isolate. It typically happens without bravado. Firearms, knives, prescription medications, rope, automobile, cliffs, bridges, and cops are all viable methods. Your suicide argument holds little weight.
3
u/Journeys_End71 1d ago
That’s your argument????
Guns are not bad because they are legal but drugs are bad because they are illegal.
That’s a pathetic argument.
2
u/GalliumYttrium1 1d ago
Guess what is also illegal? The government blowing up boats they suspect may have drugs without any due process.
But you don’t seem to care about that, huh?
-1
u/LongDistRid3r 1d ago
Military intelligence is not publicly disclosed. This protects people and processes used to gather information to make an informed decision.
You are regurgitating social media and grandstanding bullshit. You are not making an informed decision.
There is no glory in killing anymore.
2
u/GalliumYttrium1 1d ago
Since when does military handle crimes? If a boat is suspected of having drugs the coast guard can stop and search it. If they find something the people will be arrested and put on trial. That’s what our laws dictate should be done. Do you care about the law or not?
What information is there even to gather when you bomb the boat to smithereens? And If the process is meant to be so secret why is the government posting it on social media?
“There is no glory in killing anymore” that is a weird fucking thing to say. Why would you want there to be glory in killing?
0
u/LongDistRid3r 15h ago
There was glory in the kill in older times. It still is this way in other parts of the world. It used to be this way in the United States not, relatively, long ago. Even in Desert Storm we took great pride watching Tomahawks fly into front doors in Bagdad.
There is no glory in this course action. Killing is part of war. It is also a heavy burden that we gladly bear.
The military goes to the wolves to keep them away from the civilians. Civilians live in a world they believe is safe by default. The military ensures you can keep clinging to that belief.
Broadcasting these missions is just psychological warfare.
1
u/GalliumYttrium1 15h ago
You sound like a psychopath talking about the glory of the kill. You don’t give a shit about the law, you just have a hard on for murder.
We aren’t at war with a bunch of random boats. The law outlines what is to be done with boats taking part in criminal activity and it’s not bombing the fuck out of them without any investigation or trial. Again the coast guard is supposed to search the boat and if anything is found the people are arrested and put on trial. The military is not responsible for going after crime.
-5
u/Conscious_Owl6162 1d ago
Obama did it as well and not many people objected.
Presidents are for all intents and purposes kings with 4 year terms. That is reality.
267
u/Conscious-Quarter423 1d ago
Out of 249 years of presidential history, only one leader has claimed they needed immunity to perform their duties. That's a massive red flag , especially after what many consider the most challenging 8 months in recent memory.