Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity?
Glenn Greenwald and Elizabeth Price Foley debate Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential powers.
Glenn Greenwald and Elizabeth Price Foley debate Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential powers.
In response to charges that he illegally interfered with the 2020 election and improperly retained presidential records, Trump insisted that he was entitled to do whatever he wanted based on preposterous claims.
Coercing defendants into plea deals is poor training for convincing people to vote for you.
The Republican presidential candidate’s views do not reflect any unifying principle other than self-interest.
The revised indicment is intended to address the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States.
In charging the former president with illegal election interference, Special Counsel Jack Smith emphasizes the defendant's personal motivation and private means.
The proposals include term limits for Supreme Court justices, a binding ethics code, and a constitutional amendment limiting the president's' immunity from prosecution. All 3 are potentially good ideas. But devil is in details.
The proposals are likely to include term limits for Supreme Court justices, a binding ethics code, and a constitutional amendment limiting the president's and other officials' immunity from prosecution.
We need not conjure "extreme hypotheticals" to understand the danger posed by an "energetic executive" who feels free to flout the law.
I was one of the participants, along with many other legal scholars.
Plus: A listener asks whether Bruce Springsteen's song Born in the U.S.A is actually patriotic.
The Supreme Court's flawed decision largely ignores text and original meaning, and fails to resolve crucial issues.
There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable.
A thoughtful, sober take on Trump v. United States.
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
Plus: Campus echoes of Occupy Wall Street, Trump's presidential immunity claims, plans to undo the Fed's independence, and more...
Most of the justices seem skeptical of granting Donald Trump complete immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
The Supreme Court will decide whether former presidents can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding impeachment and removal.
An interesting amicus brief urges the justices not to rely upon penumbras and emanations in construing the scope of Presidential immunity.
In the name of safety, politicians did many things that diminished our lives—without making us safer.
His lawyers assert presidential immunity and discretion, criticize an "unconstitutionally vague" statute, and question the special counsel's legal status.
The appeals court says it "cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
His understanding of effective leadership and policing should repel anyone who cares about civil liberties and the rule of law.
Republican Presidential Nomination
Plus: Javier Milei’s powerful speech on economic prosperity in Davos
The former president argues that accountability is the enemy of effectiveness, both for cops and for politicians.
Plus: Libertarian populism, library wars, Latin American soft power, and more...
Step 1: Become president. That's the hardest part.
As one appeals court judge pointed out, Trump's defense could literally let a president get away with murder.
His lawyers say no jury can ever consider charges based on his "official acts" as president, which include his efforts to reverse Joe Biden's election.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the former President's attempt to claim presidential immunity covered his conduct on January 6.
An unusual coalition of liberal and conservative justices rules that property owners have right to use Quiet Title Act to contest federal intrusion on their land, even in some cases where the statute of limitations may have passed.
It's a threat to our fundamental rights, but courts refuse to change their approach.
We may have finally discovered a limit to judicial immunity.
Data show Florida and New York had similar death numbers despite vastly different approaches.
You can’t turn lives and economies off and on without inflicting lingering harm.
A 6–3 ruling undermines attempts to hold police accountable for misconduct.
Vaccination and prior infection induce a strong second line of immunological defense, finds South African study.
The Court's ruling in PennEast allows the federal government to delegate the power of eminent domain to private firms seeking to condemn state-owned property.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10