The US Supreme Court has decisions coming down this week, fast and furious, in the usual 6-3 split,that presidents have a limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office. According to the majority judgment: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
"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. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party."
This has thrown out the sentencing of Trump in New York, as that court now has to consider the issue, as part of the jury evidence involved material that occurred during the Trump presidency.
There was a dissenting judgment from Justice Sonia Sotomayor who led the Court's three liberals in dissent, writing:
"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent." This was quoted by Joe Biden, reading from a teleprompter, and old Joe even read "end of quote."
One jurisprudential issue coming from this is whether the law would therefore permit a sitting president to assassinate his/her political opposition as part of the presidential official acts? It is a good mooting question. Leftists, even lawyers, on social media in the wake of this decision called upon Biden to assassinate Trump, and imprison conservative judges, gentle souls these Leftists are, don't you think? The counter to this is that such acts of assassination/imprisonment would not be held by courts to be official acts of a president, even though some official presidential acts, as illustrated by Obama, involve drone strikes upon declared enemies, at morning meetings, while drinking tea. Here is the coverage of this:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-07-02-leftists-want-biden-order-military-assassinate-trump.html