The US Supreme Courts ruling on presidential immunity sent shockwaves across the political world. What does it mean for free speech?
Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court ruled that a US president is immune from criminal prosecution assuming that what the president did was an “official act”. What constitutes an “official act” was, however, left wide open. For some of the Supreme court justices, however, what doesn’t constitute an “official act” is diminishingly small and just about anything could constitute an “official act”.
There was some back and forth for some commentators about whether or not an “official act” is a narrow set of actions or not. Regardless, convicted felon, Donald Trump, wasted no time in arguing that everything he did as president that landed him in legal hot water constituted an “official act” and, therefore, makes him not liable for all of his criming. For instance, he argued that paying off a porn star constitutes an “official act” and, therefore, requires the judge to dismiss the case. Trumps actions pretty much confirm to his critics that he’ll plead “official act” to pretty much everything he did that broke the law and would not hesitate to do so.
One of the legal commentary on this situation was done by Legal Eagle who posted a video discussing the legal ramifications of this ruling. You can also watch it in the embed below:
Now, a popular example, which is an example that Legal Eagle gets in to, is whether or not Trump could theoretically order the military to assassinate political rivals like current sitting president, Joe Biden. For Legal Eagle, his conclusion is that there really is nothing stopping him. After all, the US president is basically the commander in chief to the US military and its hard to really think of very many acts that is more “official” than an order for the military to carry out.
Of course, a major question in all of this is whether or not Trump, should he win the White House (God help us all), could theoretically stop at Joe Biden on this front. Honestly, I can’t think of a reason why he would stop there.
It’s no secret that Trump has been angry at the media. After all, he threatened to remove basic legal protections of the media by, among other things, opening up liability laws. Trump also has a reputation of exacting revenge on anyone he feels slighted by. So, is it really that far fetched to suggest that he could theoretically send the military to kill off a journalist that happened to report on one of Trumps many scandals? Not really.
What’s more, the right wing manifesto of Project 2025 takes aim at journalism by, among other things, pushing to defund journalism organizations as well as eliminating the independence of various law enforcement agencies.
The major problem with all of this is that all of this greatly increases the risk of doing active journalism in the first place. A reasonable question then becomes, “Yeah, I think I can make a real difference in the world by reporting the facts, but is it worth getting killed over?” Naturally, this is going to be a major deterrent for people who want to pursue a career in journalism. With so many powerful tools either already with the role of the president or tools that Project 2025 aims to achieve, this places lots of legal pressure on journalists who would dare publish anything critical of the US government – something that journalists frequently pride themselves on being able to do (hold government to account).
Of course, a major point in all of this is the fact that this goes far beyond just Donald Trump. This ruling impacts every president from here on out. There’s nothing stopping a future president from using the term “official acts” for his own personal gain. After all, if the president does it, then it’s OK. Quite frankly, though, this terrifies me.
