"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."
As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.
Other official acts have presumptive immunity.
In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.
In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.
> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her
No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.
> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.
This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.
> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.
The chain of command may or may not signal (similarly to the Supreme Court) what kind of fig leaf lies are required.
From there it’s a game of telephone until a barrel of a gun.
And that wasn't anywhere near the amount of deference the president gets when it comes to emergency and war powers.
>No he can't because this is against the law
What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?
This decision says that he can issue unlawful orders, and there's nothing the court can do about it. He's immune. You don't need immunity for lawful acts. The very best you could argue is that this prevents prosecution for "gray area" acts that may or may not be lawful. But this decision essentially says that all of those "gray areas" are effectively lawful.
Decide that the protesters in Minnesota are an insurrection? Maybe they start turning up with long guns, like countless previous protestors? Order the troops to fire. It's up to them if they do or don't, but it's guaranteed if they don't, they'll be in courts martial for disobeying the order. The meeting minutes, the reports, what was known and when it was known, Trump's motive: all of them don't matter at all. The official records are inadmissible, his motive is unquestionable, and he is absolutely immune for his orders as commander-in-chief. He can pardon everyone and make them federally immune as well. Only state courts can do anything, far after the fact.
I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.
Yes.
Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac...
> Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack.
And "textbook" is not an exaggeration.
https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72...
> The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
Including "I'll pardon you and everyone down the chain if you do a war crime" promises.
Openly selling a pardon for $20M would almost certainly have led to a prosecution for bribery. Not now!
This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1]
1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8
> Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure.
> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls.
Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.
I won't talk down to you like you talked down to me. I will continue to talk up to you, if neutral in this comment. What you said was unnecessary.
Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
See how stupid that argument is?
You should read the decision.
So yes.
Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.
> which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
This part is just false
Your choice of words is rather telling.