I am not a legal expert. As such, my interpretation of what the SCOTUS opinion means might be erroneous. However, what I can comment on is on what I believe the outcome should be or should have been.
Presidents can be wrong in implementing policies and might even take actions that can possibly be judged criminal (by instances such as the World Court, for example). However, if they are deemed part of the president's core constitutional powers, they should have full immunity from prosecution.
As I see it, the key element in assessing what is a presidential core constitutional power is the determination of who is the beneficiary of use of such power, for each instance of its usage; is it the individual in his private capacity, or in the presidential capacity (regardless of the individual's title at any time).
This test achieves the dual goals of enabling the president to make the toughest of calls without the risks of being prosecuted, while preventing the president from performing criminal acts for his personal benefit.
This would seem to be the interpretation of presidential immunity most compatible with the Rule-of-law, where each is equal under the law, while recognizing the unique nature of the president's duties.
As such, if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that acts were performed not in the interest of the United States but rather as a furtherance of the president's own private interests, the president should not have immunity. The motives are obviously a critical part of the assessment of what is and what isn't core constitutional powers of the president.
Reading the SCOTUS opinion, it seems to me that instead of assessing immunity based on the beneficiary of presidential actions, they assigned immunity status strictly on their interpretation of what constitutes presidential core responsibilities and official acts, based on who the president interacts with.
Again, I am not a lawyer and I might be not interpreting their opinion correctly. But if I did, this decision is strange to me as it would seem to completely vindicate, for example, a president discussing with his vice-president the assassination of a political opponent, or the illegal transfer of public funds to his private account. Surely, the founding fathers would have considered this outside the scope of the core powers and duties of the president that he should be immune from prosecution for.
This extends to all criminal entreprises that one can think of that would privately benefit the president or anyone claiming immunity from prosecution.
One has to trust that America has a way to protect itself from a president that would criminally use the power of the state to stay in power, which is exactly what Trump did.
"The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular." 23-939, p4
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756." 23-939, p4
"Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Pp. 19–30." 23-939, p5
"The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21." 23-939, p5
The opinion above reads like circular logic; yes, the president has authority over the Justice Department and its officials. But it does not mean that the nature of the specific act was in the furtherance of the intended function of the institution. It seems that SCOTUS stops at the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. This leaves the door fully open to any future president from conducting criminal activities benefiting himself privately so long as he nominates individuals willing to partake in the crime.
"In particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which Trump pressured the Vice President to reject States’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review.
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Pp. 21–24." 23-939, p6
Again here, SCOTUS seems to be missing the forest for the tree by pushing the accountability of assessing immunity based on the literal interpretation of official acts which is basically tied to the parties involved and high level topics being discussed rather than the actual intent and beneficiary of the acts resulting from the discussion.
"(c) Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Pp. 32–34." 23-939, p6
SCOTUS dismisses Trump's requests that the whole prosecution should be dismissed based on Impeachment Judgment Clause. It would have been surprising that SCOTUS would have agreed on such egregious claim.
Section B-1 on page 19 makes it rather evident that SCOTUS painted itself into a corner where its literal interpretation of the immunity for the president which clearly exonerates the president for any criminal activity for his own benefit, as long as it is done within the confines of his official executive functions. As such, it is fine to blackmail the attorney general to force him to to commit a criminal act for the president's benefit, such as eliminating a political opponent, or, in this case, overturning the result of an election. This seems completely wrong on face value. At the very minimum, SCOTUS should have proposed presumption of immunity in all cases of official executive functions as opposed to absolute immunity.
I would suggest you spend and hour to read the dissenting opinion of Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, which detail the shortcomings of the majority opinion and clearly highlight how the the president is amply protecting from frivolous litigation without this historically unprecedented interpretation of presidential immunity.
But, maybe more obvious to everyone's understanding is the simple fact that while there was no specific definition of the scope of the presidential immunity before, there had been no systemic and dangerous recourse to attempt criminally indict the president which would have limited the executive branch's ability to act independently.
It seems self-evident that Trump's predicament is directly related to his willingness to entertain that he was above the law. It is disastrous that the SCOTUS confirms he was right to believe so...
