In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular.
This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act as president.
Of course, if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.
The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.
Well yeah that's true. But uh, you are talking lawyer talk with a set of opinions, insincerely held, because they are most concerned with "owning the libs" above everything else.
A giant part of the issue of commonlaw systems is that so much of the "law" is not laws but rulings and those are a lot easier to change/ignore/overrule.
The US couldn't pass the ERA, which just enshrines women's rights in the Constitution. Anything more controversial like "the President can't do extrajudicial murders" would be an endless partisan battle
But yes, what I meant is that the supreme court has the power to interpret the law and uphold the constitution, but it is on the legislation to draft precise laws.
I agree with you - it's not like Bush has been held accountable in any way. Neither has Cheney, and we know Rumsfeld never will. Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. That requires people to organize to make them. I'm not seeing it happen.
Congress granted the Bush administration broad powers. The problem is not inaction.
You mean because he has been dead for 3 years?
Current SCOTUS: "you're gonna need pages of new law to explicitly define what constitutes an official act of the president"
Current SCOTUS: "you're gonna need tomes of new law that are routinely kept up to date with new scientific knowledge for all federal agencies now that Chevron is overturned"
Another topic that hasn't come up quite as much is the fact that this is an immunity proposition, not a defense. What SCOTUS is saying is that we aren't permitted to even ask if the president is reasonable in his beliefs; any trial on the merits is completely and totally foreclosed--that's what immunity means. Just a few days ago, SCOTUS decided that it's absolutely important that administrative law procedures need to go through the step of being heard by a jury trial, and now here it's saying that it's absolutely important that the president never be burdened by the prospect of having to have a jury weigh their actions.
It's just... really galling that SCOTUS would decide that the constitution requires that the president be a king above the law, exactly the sort of thing that England fought a few civil wars over before the US even sought its independence.
Nevermind that the order was given by a US official, presumably on US soil.
You're underestimating the creativity of prosecutors. :)
For example, they could have charged him with conspiracy to commit murder in any location where Obama met with others to discuss killing al-Awlaki.
Or a future president, like Trump, could have pressured a federal prosecutors to bring charges in Federal Court, since they can bring charges for crimes committed against Americans globally.
No, the supreme court just gave the president immunity for exactly this. This exact scenario is quoted upthread:
> Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
It's curious because this would also seem to legalize the Watergate scandal and Nixon's famous line "if the president does it, its not illegal".
Maybe.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judic...
And of course, if it's something that the Supreme Court wants a president to face consequences for for partisan reasons, they can simply use their majority to say that whatever they didn't like was not an official act.
People get very judgemental when Putin assassinates defectors, but when Obama does it it's ok?
Relatedly, when the question is "is this person protected by the Constitution," imagine a Venn diagram where one circle is "US citizens" and the other circle is "human being physically present within the United States." Debate over the 100-mile "border zone" notwithstanding, the entire thing is filled in. If you are a US citizen anywhere, or a person inside the US, you have all the Constitutional rights.
That seems like the majority opinion agrees.
It'd be hard to argue that commanding the military wasn't an official act of the president under the Constitution even if that command was to Navy's Seal Team 6 asking them to assassinate a political rival for reasons of "national security"
What does that even mean if it's impossible to prosecute the President? What does that even mean?
On the one hand: if you are president and you authorize the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to get Japan to surrender without further loss of American life, you won't later be prosecuted for war crimes when your political rival comes into power.
On the other hand, if you are president and you murder a Japanese person you see on the street when going for a stroll outside the white house, you can be prosecuted for that.
Meaning, if the president shoots a random bystander on the street they can be charged with murder. If the president orders a military strike as part of an official operation and done through proper channels, they can't be charged if it later turns out the intel was bad or the strike went wrong in some way.
What if the President signs an Executive Order directing himself to shoot someone in the street?
Think of it like the police. An off duty cop is not acting under official powers. Even on duty, a cop is limited in what and how they are supposed to do their job and crossing outside those bounds technically makes them personally liable. I wouldn't begin to say we are any good at actually holding police accountable when they act outside their official duties, but that's a whole separate can of worms.
I read it and what is above is my understanding of how they attempted to parse the law, but I'm happy to be wrong if I missed something.
If the president air strikes people and uses drone strikes using whatever system congress has said that makes that "okay" then he cannot be prosecuted for murder while authorizing and ultimately conducting drone strikes (in most circumstances).
However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way.
Why not? US presidents have murdered US citizens abroad with drones. All he needs to do is claim he did it under national security. SCOTUS explicitly calls out that the presidents motives are immaterial for determining immunity or not.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-immunity-former...
(1) before today, there was no solid answer to what immunity a president may have
(2) it's unclear whether 'January 6' is an 'official' act (or even Trump's act at all, as he was not involved, denounced the rioters immediately, and called for a peaceful assembly)
'Immediately' as in many hours after violence started, and his own children begged him to do something?
That's because no president has committed any supposed crime of any importance.
Nixon probably did, but resigned anyway, and was then pardoned, so it doesn't really matter.
Clinton was a technicality, and never removed from office, and no one cares really. Lewinsky is a celebrity now.
Trump... well the first one was obviously political (many Presidents deny foreign aid, etc... it's part of foreign policy. Biden is famously on tape as admitting to doing the exact same thing) and the second one was on thin ice as Trump explicitly called for peace
"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations."
Like it or not, the allegations against Biden and his son have only become more substantiated over time.
Trump should not be punished for investigating.
I thought the USA was a country of laws, not kings.
* actually guaranteeing that if the president is trampling my rights and a supermajority of congress don't like it, he'll be ejected from office, not anything to do with my protection or restitution.
It is. The 'official' duties of presidents and the federal government are clearly laid out in the Constitution and subsequent laws. And moreover, the Presidents term expires at the end of four years, whether he believes it does or not. The concern-trolling over Jan 6 is something else. Even supposing the rioters had murderous intent and were going to hang people (they weren't... this was just a protest gone wrong)... trump would still cease to be president on January 20. No action needs to be taken to elect another one. The Presidency would fall to whomever is next in line and duly elected.
There is no way for a President to become a 'king'. The most years a President may serve is eight and at midnight on January 20 (or noon, I forget), no one listens to him anymore
> * actually guaranteeing that if the president is trampling my rights and a supermajority of congress don't like it, he'll be ejected from office, not anything to do with my protection or restitution.
Currently, the recourse you have if you believe the president is violating your rights is to file a civil action in a federal court. No action of congress is needed for you to do this. If your complaint is that SCOTUS, as the court of final appeal, may get your case wrong... indeed that is worrisome and indeed it's happened before, but if that's your complaint, then it has nothing to do with this case.
Your only recourse would be waiting until the President is out of office, then getting DoJ onboard to press criminal charges, with all the due process that entails. Fitzgerald explicitly provides no protection in the case of criminal litigation over and beyond that of an ordinary citizen for a former President.
Until today at least. God save us all.
EDIT: to clarify: Any president up until now, and from now going forward, has the power to command his generals to murder every senator, justice, and governor. Of course, American soldiers take an oath to the constitution, so hopefully this wouldn't happen, but he could. Moreover, anyone can 'just' murder all living politicians and declare themselves king. This is hardly a theoretical scenario to concern oneself over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...
Intimidating the court into ruling in your favor with guns to their heads is an official act until the court says it isn't official, but the court can't say it isn't offical, because they've got guns to their heads.
That this system fails to work when it's axioms are ignored (i.e. in the stated case of a coup) cannot be construed as a failure of common law or an indictment on its 950+ years of success. Such act would be a failure of the Executive solely.
The founder's stated intent for resolving such a situation is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Since imprisoning the president would obviously intrude on the functions of the Executive branch, it really looks like the majority opinion is that no president may be prosecuted for any "official act".
Many disputes about presidential actions are about what the constitution allows.
The majority said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.[1]
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
> 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. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
> unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.
This seems to be the real boundary. To show something doesn't have immunity you either have to:
1. Show it was an unofficial act
2. Show it wasn't part of the core presidential powers and that prosecuting it wouldn't have any danger of intruding intruding on "the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."
I think that last standard is related to presidential immunity from subpoena which courts have also recently construed quite broadly
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
So now the president can clearly break the law, and he cannot be questioned about it if it even remotely looks like maybe it could have been an official act? Surely, the correct ruling wold be that anything illegal is intrinsically not an official act, otherwise we wind up where the institution of the government is not bound by its founding documents. The executive branch of the government is a rogue entity with nothing to restrain it, as long as the president remembers to use a pompous looking stamp. For *certainly you can never show it was an unofficial act if you are not allowed to investigate because it is presumed an official act subject to absolute immunity *.
Mark my words. The next republican president will shut down any and all attempts to even question him or view documents, by preempting the investigation using this as his argument. And shortly later they will, most likely, start disbarring and / or incarcerating anybody who attempts to investigate him for "frivolous" persecutions that impede the executive branch. This ruling is very calculated, since they know Biden will not abuse his powers because of it, but there is an almost unstoppable amount of latent power that will be immediately abused by the next president.
When it comes to it, this exact thing will be covered by immunity because of how things work.
Or, if the President uses his powers to assassinate a governor -- again, explicitly not an official act, as the president has no authority over state elections.
If anyone bothered to read the constitution, it clearly lays out the sorts of things that could be construed as official, and the sorts of things that are not. The President does not have unlimited authority. His scope of authority is rather small, even if several important things fall under it. Part of the problem is the pervasive idea in American electoral politics that the president has some sort of power to 'promise' various laws and such. It's so silly since no President can possibly do that.
Not true, it depends on how he does it. If he hacks someone to death with a sword, that's not an official act, and it doesn't matter why he does it. But if he orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that is an official act. This example is specifically stated in the dissenting opinion.
One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.
In general, one would hope Seal Team 6 would not follow such an act as they owe allegiance to our system of laws before any presidential order.
Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't.
> In general, one would hope Seal Team 6 would not follow such an act as they owe allegiance to our system of laws before any presidential order.
It's a strange world we live in where a president can order something illegal but not face any consequences. I suppose you could argue we already lived in such a world, but now the difference is that he can brazenly do it.
We always lived in such a world. I know you might think the court did this to protect Trump, but realistically, the one who's more protected (since murder is a much worse crime than anything Trump's been accused of) is Obama, who ordered the murder of an American citizen by the American military.
I'm not sure what your standard of brazen is, but since he basically got not even a threat of impeachment for that, I'm going to go with that being much more brazen.
Not that I particularly care. Obama made the right call IMO.
EDIT: Here's an article in which the ACLU raises the same hypothetical concern you do (the president will now be able to kill whomever): https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-drone-memo...
Ordering the assassination of an American citizen not caught in the act of doing something illegal is illegal and Obama should be prosecuted for that. But his justification was that it was for national security, and as you say, some people think that's a fine justification. If his justification were that he didn't like the cut of his jib, then you'd be against it I assume.
As things lie now, rationale and justification don't matter in determining whether something is prosecutable or not, and that's scary, to me at least.
EDIT: Also, did you see my question from an earlier post:
>> One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.
> Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't.
So this may surprise you but the government of the United States is naturally immune from any case where it kills you or harms you in any way.
Congress has consented to being liable because it thinks that's nice, but it withdraws consent whenever it wants. The entirety of the idea of 'suing' or 'prosecuting' the government is something that only happens with the governments consent and they regularly withdraw it if it's upsetting the them
* You cannot sue because the federal government and all state governments are immune from all civil suits naturally. Congress has consented to be sued because it thinks that that's a nice approach, but it can always choose to not be sued if it wanted to
Technically, the murder is illegal, but the pardon is legal because it's 'part of his official duties'.
There are any number of ways this can be abused.
You are clutching pearls over something that is already allowed. Like I said, Congress can impeach a president who does this if they don't like it.
Moreover, a president can't pardon state level offenses anyway, and I would imagine the murder would have to take place in a state. The state could simply retry the case. States have much more discretion in the sorts of things they can criminalize.
6 members of the Supreme Court said Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult.[1]
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
If there weren't lawyers, law would be oh, so much simpler..
Cleary, clearly this was a partisan decision. They can't just say "We Have a King Now", so they dressed up just enough of a reasonable interpretation to be able to kill this particular prosecution, while allowing themselves wiggle room to prosecute the kings they don't like. They aren't really trying to uncork executive abuse, they really hope it doesn't happen. But they want Trump not to be prosecuted, and put their fingers on the scale with what they hope is just enough pressure. We'll see.
I mean, it's still really bad, but a few slivers less bad than you say :P
Like if you want to do a coup, as long as you task the army with removing congress it's an official act?
It's the same things cops do, jeez.
I understand your point and I'm not saying it's a great spot to land at, but I don't understand how the country's President can function if it were any other way. It's not just about Donald Trump, it's about 1 through 44 and 46 through whatever number we get to before this whole place burns down.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
So the hypo cannot be trivially resolved by treating the kill order as an unofficial act. Instead, for the president to be _criminally_ liable, I think (as not-a-lawyer) it has to be resolved by piercing 'presumptive immunity' for actions beyond the core powers. While there's a needle to thread, it feels disturbingly narrow.
I wouldn't have bought that; but alas, no one asked me.
Due process is about validating the government's claims before allowing it to kill someone.
The silence from the people who once decried the 'activist court' now that it's an ally of the slow fascist transformation is deafening.
> the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially?”
If the people don't like a landmark case (i.e. the disagree with the interpretation), Congress can pass a new law. If a new law contradicts the court's opinion, the law takes precedence.
Maybe.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judic...
But even then, with enough agreement from the states, Congress can amend the Constitution.
Congress can also impeach justices, which is one of their checks on the Judicial branch. They also have the authority to confirm the Executive's judicial nominees (one of their checks on the Executive).
So, they can invent tests later, after they see how this decision affects the prosecution.
how is that not a test?
Trump murdering his business partner at a dinner because they had a fallout is pretty clearly unofficial, while Trump ordering assassination of the Tyrant of Ruritania is official, albeit probably immoral and/or dangerous to boot.
Of course the grey zone between those two poles is going to be pretty wide.
Why? The majority said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.[1]
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
He doesn't even have to provide such a justification because the court has said the President's motives cannot be used to decide if it was official or unofficial.
It seems a lot is assumed in that one sentence. Did he give an order that said 'Overthrow!"? If not, what, exactly, did he do? And this may be a part of the issue. Everything is a hyperbole wrapped in performative anger.
In other words, can you name an action that you deem unofficial that would qualify as 'overthrow"?
Failing to execute his office by failing to defend the Capitol
Telling the Proud Boys to stand by rather than stand down
Encouraging a vitriolic crowd to take back their country and transferring blame to Pence, who was going to be in the Capitol performing his Senate duties.
---------------
There comes a time when we have look past the mob-boss-need-for-explicit wording schtick and recognize a space as a space.
Yeah, I.. I think you will want to find a better example than what he actually said[1]
<< Failing to execute his office by failing to defend the Capitol
So a lack of an official act is an official act? This does not fall under what I asked for, but good try.
<< Elector conspiracy
You have something there, but you want something more concrete. What was his exact step that was NOT an official act in your view.
<< Telling the Proud Boys to stand by rather than stand down
You have something there, but again not much to go after unless you want to argue actions vs words.
<< There comes a time when we have look past the mob-boss-need-for-explicit wording schtick and recognize a space as a space.
Listen, rules exist for a reason. You break those rules and you deal with consequences of that break. If Trump did not break those rules and you think those rules do not meet the current needs, then you may want to change those rules, but arguing 'well, he is guilty of something' is a little silly and, frankly, against the very foundation of this country.
The funny thing is, you clearly recognize the 'exact wording' issue as an obstacle to put him away.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-full-speech-at-dc-rally-on-j...
"... al-Awlaki ... was an American-Yemeni lecturer, and jihadist who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government."
this act is still in effect.
Explain the difference.
If a Republican president does it that is official.
If a Democract president does it that is unofficial.
The ruling is a bit more nuanced that the most popular takes here, but is seems mostly because the Court wants to make sure it can't be dethroned and because they recognize that Biden is the president for at least 6 more months.
Evidence: Obama supporters treating the assassination of that American citizen as an official action.
The court opinion literally says pressuring the vice president to try to not certify the election was an official act related to talking about the limits of his roles and responsibilities.
We are already well into stupid word games territory.
What is your counter argument, from the actual opinion?
> It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
Yes it does - the part you cite was written because they found it an official act with a presumption of immunity that the government has some chance to rebut. If it had been an unofficial act, there would be no immunity at all.
Here:
"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"
This isn't how Supreme Court cases usually work. Most of the time, as in this case, they clarify some things and send it back to the lower courts.
The Court here ruled that the President is entitled to immunity for official acts and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if Trump was acting in his official capacity as President or in his capacity as a political candidate.
I'm actually a member of the Supreme Court bar, and have been involved in a number of supreme court cases, so i'm fairly aware of how Supreme Court cases work :)
They did what I said:
"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"
It sounds like it does, from the majority opinion:
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
So it sounds like "official acts" means an act "exercising his core constitutional powers."
Core constitutional powers: may not be prosecuted. Period. Impossible.
Official acts: presumptive immunity, may possibly be prosecuted.
Clearly "core constitutional powers" != "official acts" because they have two very different standards applied.
Who said?
So if you belive that the election was stolen, and organize a military uprising to fix that, then what?
You're acting in your official capacity to uphold the constitutional rights. It's all fine and dandy, and you should get full immunity.
Or if you don't believe the election was stolen. The court said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
The most recent affirmation: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-upholds-bar...
There are countless other cases.
Ouroboros
I think the problem is that the section regarding evidence, c3 iirc, says that any evidence implicating a criminal unofficial act must itself be unofficial, and not related to presidential acts.
SCOTUS disagrees with you. People can be stripped of their constitutional rights and they are official acts.
For the most recent case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-upholds-bar...
2nd Amendment versus the executive branch's right to enforce that law.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Par...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-...
During the Supreme Court hearings, has anyone asked the hypothetical of a president deciding to send Team 6 to get rid of some members of the Supreme Court? No prosecution for that too?
I could see the argument being made that yes, that's an official act. You'd have to argue why it's okay for a President to abandon their oath of office.
The president now has immunity to corrupt elections as he wishes. I honestly don't understand how any American can be happy about this.
The decision literally states "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."
He can claim the assassination was an official act in defense of national security, and no amount of "but he owed the guy money!" matters.
There's scopes to the application of the ruling. An extrajudicial killing of a political opponent certainly falls outside of scope.
There wasn't all that much fuss when we did it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki.
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
EDIT: OP left a reply to this comment that I think was unfairly flagged, visible here with showdead:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848860