Supreme Court Justices Raise Hypothetical Scenario of President Ordering Assassination of Political Rival
In a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, two justices raised a provocative hypothetical scenario: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday stated that former presidents are entitled to some protections for “official” acts, but there is no immunity for “unofficial” acts. This rejected Trump’s claim of “absolute” immunity from criminal prosecution in his federal election subversion case.
The 6-3 opinion, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, saw Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder, including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the new official-acts immunity could potentially allow a president to order the assassination of a political rival without facing consequences. Jackson also expressed concerns about the potential for a president to receive immunity for ordering assassinations of political rivals or critics.
Chief Justice Roberts pushed back against the extreme hypothetical scenarios presented in the dissenting opinions, arguing that the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent should not be ignored in favor of fear-mongering.
The discussion of the SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case, with Justice Sotomayor questioning whether such an act could be considered an official act deserving of immunity.
The dissenting opinions and the debate surrounding the hypothetical scenario have sparked discussions about the limits of presidential immunity and the potential implications for future administrations. The Supreme Court’s ruling has raised important questions about the balance between presidential powers and accountability.
Overall, the case has highlighted the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding presidential immunity and the potential consequences of expanding or limiting such protections in the future.