Following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity, former University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa William S. Richardson School of Law Dean Avi Soifer talked to The Conversation about what the decision means.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court established that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for actions that fall within their “core” constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts.
"This is a shocking decision on many levels," Soifer said. "Basically, what the Supreme Court just did was certainly not consistent with what they say they're doing in terms of the text and originalism and precedent and all that, because they followed none of that."
NPR reports that the court’s decision is a legal win for Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump. It further delays his federal election interference case, ensuring it will not go to trial this year. It also complicates the work of prosecutors in D.C., Florida and Georgia who are working on the other pending criminal cases he is facing.
"The founders were concerned about kings. That was a big part of what the Declaration of Independence was about, what the revolution was about. And this as far as any court has ever gone, in saying 'No, no, the president really is like a king,'" Soifer added.
He said there is language circulating among law professors that proposes a new constitutional amendment to reverse the impact of the court decision.
"There are some statutory things that Congress can do, but they would not, in a direct way, limit what the court said," he added. "And then there are people who are talking about increasing the number of justices, which has been done in the past."
"And there's an intriguing proposal, which Sen. Mazie Hirono, I know, is very interested in, that says a new president should be able to appoint two justices — every new president. So in the course of 18 years, you would have complete turnover on the court. Again, I don't think that is politically likely to succeed, but it's an interesting attempt to limit the authority of the court."
This interview aired on The Conversation on July 8, 2024. The Conversation airs weekdays at 11 a.m. on HPR-1.
