The Washington Post

**ONE TIME USE ONLY ILLUSTRATION. MANDATORY CREDIT. For op-karamurza0409, portrait of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

For The Washington Post

**ONE TIME USE ONLY FOR OP-LAMOTT

Sonia Sotomayor,Clarence Thomas,John Roberts,Samuel Alito,Elena Kagan,Amy Coney Barrett,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh,Ketanji Brown Jackson,Michael Dreeben

Children holding hands

Contributor

ONE TIME USE FOR OP-CARNEY KIDS 

FEDERALISTGALA

Four Dalmatian Puppy

other

People visit the site of the Nova festival, in Reim

Fake Electors Indictment Arizona

Israel Palestinians Campus Protests

US-PALESTINIAN-ISRAEL-EDUCATION-CONFLICT

**ONE TIME USE ONLY FOR OP-SMITH-HIGHER-ED

Former U.S. President Trump's criminal trial on charges of falsifying business records continues in New York

POOL

Westminster Dog Show

ONE TIME USE ILLUSTRATION FOR OP-RIEVES-HUBRIS

Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Don’t be a jerk at the airport: A guide for headphones

The new cure-all for vacation excess: the IV drip 

What’s the best bus to New York? We tested 5 for comfort and value.

How TikTok changed fashion

Book excerpt: The admiral who had a mental breakdown over Fat Leonard

How Pope Francis opened the Vatican to transgender sex workers

The Trump-Biden battle over the 2017 tax cut

That time football legend, rig-driving eligible bachelor Biden was arrested

Trump and allies say Biden pays rent for ‘illegals’ in Michigan. Not true.

Improper ‘shadow’ ads thriving on Facebook during India’s election

Bosses mandated them back to the office. They took legal action instead.

Election 2024 latest news: After big weekend in Palm Beach, Trump returns to N.Y. courtroom

Kim Godwin steps down suddenly as president of ABC News

The ‘Access Hollywood’ video cemented Trump’s air of invincibility

The New York Times, alone in its outrage over access to Biden

Russia is using toxic chemical weapons, wrecking a ban it helped create

There’s still time for Congress to Trump-proof the Insurrection Act 

The Post endorses April McClain Delaney and Tom Royals for Maryland’s 6th District

Strangers help Sesame Street puppeteer after heirloom necklace was stolen

Teen grabs wheel when driver passes out and school bus veers into traffic

Cat climbed into Amazon return box, found alive 630 miles away

Trump’s vice presidential supplicants toe the line on election fraud

How did we end up with a Biden-Trump matchup again?

Under Putin, a militarized new Russia rises to challenge U.S. and the West 

Noem explains inclusion of story about shooting pet dog

Carolyn Hax: Sisters were close — then one accused the other’s husband of abuse

Miss Manners: I’m bothered by a fellow guest not touching their dessert

Ask Amy: My estranged wife is telling my son I’m an adulterer

Eddie Rosario and Co. lead the Nats to an MLB-best 12th comeback win

CJ Abrams keeps getting better. It’s time to think about an extension.

Sloppy first inning dooms the Nationals in a 6-3 loss to the Blue Jays

Historic floods kill 83, leaving Brazil and its president shaken, angry

Missing surfers from U.S., Australia confirmed dead by Mexico

We reported for months on changes sweeping Russia. Here’s what we found.  

WAUKESHA, WI - MAY 1st: Former president Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on Wednesday May 1st, 2024.  (Photo by Sara Stathas for the Washington Post)

Dana Verkouteren

The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case/" target=_blank>heard oral arguments</a> Thursday on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for acts taken in his official capacity as president. The conservative justices appeared to doubt the Biden Justice Department’s assertion that the president has no criminal immunity, and it looks as though the matter won’t be cleanly or swiftly resolved.

It might well have been impossible for the Justice Department to prevail outright in the case. Several of the justices served in presidential administrations and have firm views about the scope of executive power already. But the Justice Department also relied on arguments that were bound to be unpersuasive. There was an alternative route, hinted at by two of the court’s liberal justices, that would have been more politically provocative but perhaps carried more weight.

First, some background: The most important precedent in this case is 1982’s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738" target=_blank>Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a>, which held that presidents generally can’t face civil lawsuits for “official acts” they took in office because that would hamper their constitutional responsibilities. Should the same logic apply at all in criminal cases?

This isn’t so much a legal question as a value judgment about how democracy should function. The Constitution has no answer. The pragmatic case against immunity is based on the risk of a president becoming a tyrant in the absence of criminal accountability. (<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf" target=_blank>Hence Justice Elena Kagan’s question</a> about whether a president could be prosecuted for ordering the military to stage a coup.)

The pragmatic case for immunity is based on the risk of partisan prosecutions in an environment of eroding political norms. (Hence Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s question whether the Justice Department’s position would “lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country.”)

The Justice Department tried to undermine the pragmatic case for immunity by declaring, in essence, that prosecutors are so exquisitely honorable and beyond reproach that politicized charges against former presidents are no great concern. That is both a dubious description of current political reality (just listen to Trump promising to unleash the Justice Department on his opponents) and at odds with the conservative approach to constitutionalism, which assumes, as the Founders did, that politics will always be rife with mischief and self-interested behavior.

Michael Dreeben, the lawyer representing the Justice Department, emphasized that the election interference case against Trump is a “once-in-history prosecution.” He said prosecutors have “no incentive to bring a case” if it isn’t well-supported. He also insisted that “the Department of Justice takes criminal law very seriously. It runs it through the analysis very carefully with established principles.” It is staffed by people who “adhere to their office.”

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf" target=_blank>The prosecutors’ brief</a> cited the Justice Department manual guidelines as a safeguard against wrongful prosecution — even though, as Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith has pointed out, it is <a href="https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-consequences-of-jack-smith's-rush-to-trial" target=_blank>probably violating that very manual</a> with its rush to trial in this very case.

The bottom line is that the case against presidential immunity relied heavily on the idea that the justices should trust the Justice Department — not just this department but all departments in the future. Prosecutors are strait-laced, the apolitical good guys. They can put aside personal beliefs and supervise the president’s performance of controversial official acts.

That was never going to fly. With presidents of both parties increasingly pushing the boundaries of their authority, with polarization at a historic level, with the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/count-the-code-quantifying-federalization-criminal-statutes" target="_blank">number of federal crimes</a> on the books growing at a steady clip, Dreeben’s dismissal of concerns about partisan prosecution isn’t credible.

Conservatives tend to take a darker view of human nature than the tidy vision of Justice Department irreproachability that Dreeben presented. So how might those justices have been reached? The Justice Department could have conceded that politicized investigations and prosecutions are a clear and present risk, but insisted that it’s simply not the justices’ job to put a stop to that tendency. It could have made an argument from judicial minimalism — that the court should let the political branches do their worst.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a better version of this argument than Dreeben. She called “prosecutorial abuse” a “very legitimate concern.” But she suggested that if one administration prosecutes its rival, it is more likely to face prosecution itself. “If they go after the former guy,” she said, “soon they’re going to be the former guy.”

In other words, political deterrence might put a lid on partisan lawfare. That vision — that the parties will explore ways to use the law against each other, but will watch their step because of the risks when power changes hands — is a whole lot more credible than the portrait of Justice Department employees as legal divinities.

This is, paradoxically, a darker view of politics than the one the conservative justices seem prepared to embrace. But it reflects political realism of the kind the Founders would have recognized. Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly pointed out that if the existing checks on vindictive prosecution “completely” fail, “it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own.”

A majority on the Supreme Court seems inclined to think some kind of immunity is necessary to nudge American democracy in the right direction. The best counter would have been that the fate of democracy belongs to the people and their elected representatives, who can destroy it if they are determined to — and that when the Constitution is silent, the Supreme Court should stay out of the way.

Stanford University, BA

Jason Willick is a Washington Post columnist focusing on law, politics and foreign policy.

Jason Willick

washpost

Trump’s immunity claims are vulnerable to this better argument

the-washington-post

Sonia Sotomayor,Clarence Thomas,John Roberts,Samuel Alito,Elena Kagan,Amy Coney Barrett,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh,Ketanji Brown Jackson

Editorials

Columns

Guest opinions

Cartoons

Submit a guest opinion

Today's Opinions newsletter

Opinions

Sign up for Democracy, Refreshed, a newsletter series on how to renovate the republic.

Opinion Columns

Opinion Columnists

Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politics

Washington Post Opinions

The Washington Post Opinions section features opinion articles, op-eds, editorials by the Editorial Board, global opinions and letters to the editor on the issues of the day. Offerings include columns by Washington Post opinion writers, political cartoons by editorial cartoonists Ann Telnaes and Michael de Adder and podcasts by Jonathan Capehart.