That assumes the agencies have been creating rules that fall outside the clear intent of Congress. If the agencies have been acting within the framework of legislation, we shouldn't have much to worry about, right?
The most wonderful time of the year...
- Thread starter Aardvark86
- Start date
and now roberts with immunity...drum roll...
absolute immunity for acts solely within presidential power
presumptive immunity for acts within outer perimeter of presidential authority
no immunity for unofficial acts
seems like a bunch of stuff is being categorized in bucket 2, with remand to the district court to sort out whether presumptions are rebutted.
no immunity based on impeachment as exclusive remedy
absolute immunity for acts solely within presidential power
presumptive immunity for acts within outer perimeter of presidential authority
no immunity for unofficial acts
seems like a bunch of stuff is being categorized in bucket 2, with remand to the district court to sort out whether presumptions are rebutted.
no immunity based on impeachment as exclusive remedy
No. Find or create an entity that has standing and is less than 6 years old and you can challenge the FDA’s approval of Covid vaccine or mifepristone - both of which are squarely in its strike zone.
sort of, if they are actually injured by teh approval, though i'm a little less sure about application to non-rules.
The court did provide guidance to the District Court on how to ponder the indictments that were remanded.
Where's Joes Place? I thought he would have been the first to weigh in.
Jackson's dissent is separate from Soto, and lengthy.
I know we will disagree, but I think it's a good discussion.
Let's talk Pfizer. There's a current FOIA dispute going on in federal court in AZ. The FDA has taken the stance that it will take 75 years to release the Pfizer COVID vaccine testing information. The court has ordered that sped up, but what if the relevant data isn't released for 7 years?
I need to read the opinion rather than skim it to answer. However, you and I will agree on FOIA. Government delays and stonewall are ridiculous no matter which party is in charge.
1. Obviously will take a bit to sort through all of this.
2. In some ways, I hate what I've read so far as it's like Justice Jackson's opinion in the steel seizure cases about executive power in foreign policy - just seemingly arising out of whole cloth. in some ways i get that's sort of the nature of interpreting a broad article ii grant, but it's probably where the court is most at peril.
3. While I 'get' the idea that there needs to be 'some' presidential immunity for certain categories of official acts, my gut here is that they've set the bar too low for what's official/exclusive, and too high for how presumptive immunity may be rebutted.
4. As I think most expected, the G is going to have to refine its case, and that'll take time, for better for worse -- I don't know criminal procedure well enough to know what happens when certain allegations of a grand jury indictment get nixed. But here's the sleeper in Roberts' "guidance" (which I think was probably prudent to provide, but perhaps not all that helpful in what was said): the one area where he did say a fair bit in terms of absolute immunity was with respect to the president's authority over the doj ---
(From the syllabus): "The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigateand prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to removethe most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." Bottom line: if Trump wins the election, this case is over. Period.
5. One of the problems I have with Soto's dissents is that all too often she resorts to the most extreme forms of fearmongering, even though she is certainly capable of cogent legal argument. I agree with her that the king CAN do wrong. And I get that decisions like this beget hard hypos (some of which were asked at argument), but no one seriously thinks political assassination by Seal Team 6 is somehow subject to immunity.
Also, fyi, a fair number of sirens in downtown dc right now, but i'm going to just assume that's the usual street crime.
Finally, a quick note that we'll get the end of term cleanup order list later today. I suspect we'll get a lot of 2A cases remanded, but we may get a few new grants for next term.
Last edited:
I think the SCOTUS doesn't want to see a parade of cases being filed against a POTUS or former POTUS.
I also think that Soto's dissent touches every POTUS. For instance, Obama killed civilians overseas with a drone, including an execution of a US citizen that got no judicial due process.
The fact that several indictments were remanded to the District shows the majority didn't give Trump a free pass.
I also think that Soto's dissent touches every POTUS. For instance, Obama killed civilians overseas with a drone, including an execution of a US citizen that got no judicial due process.
The fact that several indictments were remanded to the District shows the majority didn't give Trump a free pass.
I agree that with the luxury of time, he is not getting a free pass. But the doj doesn't likely have the luxury of time.
I would also note that there are certain elements here (eg, the part about calling the AZ house speaker seeking legislative hearings about putative election fraud in a close/contested election) which, while on the 'unofficial' side of the line imo, don't really strike me as much of a basis for a claim sounding in insurrection. but maybe that's better as a jury question
Just a quick note about the Court's end of term clean up order....
1. Over 20 cases cert granted and remanded, most in light of Rahimi, Loper Bright, and Erlinger.
2. Four new grants for next term - immigration, sentencing, e-cigarettes, and a 1A case out of texas.
3. A couple of interesting dissents/statements in cert denials, including delegation doctrine, assault weapons ban, and CDA immunity, along with the usual criminal petitions.
1. Over 20 cases cert granted and remanded, most in light of Rahimi, Loper Bright, and Erlinger.
2. Four new grants for next term - immigration, sentencing, e-cigarettes, and a 1A case out of texas.
3. A couple of interesting dissents/statements in cert denials, including delegation doctrine, assault weapons ban, and CDA immunity, along with the usual criminal petitions.
I'd say the term has concluded, and the Court is adjourned.
Somebody had to do it.
I'd say you are welcome but we will call it even.
😉 thanks guys, I learned a little.
Similar threads
