The recent decision of the US Supreme Court in Trump against the United States has sparked chatter and concern about the potentially broad scope of immunity granted to presidents and their staff. In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that former President Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, giving him immunity from charges for allegedly trying to overturn the election. 2020. While Chief Justice Roberts wrote that there is no immunity for “informal acts,” the court did not clarify what constitutes an “official act.”
The majority's reasoning for immunity from prosecution for official acts during the president's term rests on the fear that “(e)ven if the President were ultimately not liable for certain official acts, the possibility of a protracted proceeding could only make him” unfair”. careful in the performance of his official duties.”
The dissenting justices argued that the majority ruling makes a president above the law, and the Biden administration echoed that view and called it a “dangerous precedent.”
Weaponizing the IRS?
A concern raised by tax lawyers is that The Internal Revenue Service could be armed against potential political opponents. For example, the latest ruling effectively decriminalizes former President Nixon's conduct — and, according to some experts, likely would have shielded him from prosecution for his role in the Watergate scandal.
“I am concerned about an abuse of power at the IRS by the executive branch,” said Michael A. Gregory, an expert in conflict resolution and a former IRS official. “With this new ruling, it appears that an unscrupulous executive could take actions that are currently considered inappropriate by the IRS,” he explained. The Supreme Court's ambiguous ruling creates a gray area around what is defined as an “official act,” potentially leaving the door open to the interpretation that a president's request for tax audits or politically motivated investigations of political opponents to preventing them from being immune from prosecution (or, rewarding political acquaintances by stopping their IRS audits).
Not as wide as feared
The opposing view is that the scope of the Supreme Court decision is not as broad as it appears to be. While some critics of the opinion fear a precedent of illegality for future presidents, others argue that while the Court ruled that “former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions related to the primary powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official actions more broadly,” there is still “the possibility that charges against former President Donald Trump” could “go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct and not in his official acts.” as explained by Amy Howe in her Opinion Analysis for SCOTUSblog. Likewise, some of the scandalous behavior that opponents fear will be made immune from prosecution by the ruling, such as a coup, killing a rival or a bribe in exchange for a pardon, would still be punishable because each would also involve unofficial conduct. AND competing constitutional powers.