Jack Goldsmith of the Lawfare Blog shares his insights on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. His analysis on executive power and accountability is always worth a read. Goldsmith was also an early advocate for the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision on presidential immunity.
Goldsmith’s latest piece delves into the novel questions surrounding presidential power. The Court’s recognition of broad presidential immunity has sparked strong opinions, but the definitive answer lies in time. The Constitution grants the president significant power to interpret and enforce laws while ensuring they are not above the law.
In the Biden administration’s prosecution of former President Trump, difficult questions arise regarding his actions post-election. Did Trump commit crimes, and did Special Counsel Jack Smith overstep in charging him? Goldsmith notes that the case raises complex issues that go beyond typical cable news commentary.
While there is no explicit textual basis for presidential immunity, past precedents like Nixon v. Fitzgerald suggest otherwise. Justice Barrett’s concurrence highlights structural reasons why some form of immunity is necessary. The ultimate responsibility to constrain an unfit president lies with Congress and the electorate.
