The Supreme Court’s decision that grants presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for their “official acts” has been met by alarm by many legal scholars. Constitutional lawyer Michael Waldman referred to the decision as an “instruction manual for lawbreaking presidents,” while law professor Michael Dorf noted that the ruling would seemingly allow a president to openly sell pardons for bribes.
As a political philosopher whose work focuses on how political institutions are preserved, I am concerned about these implications of the court’s decision. I am, however, also worried about what the effects would be of the absence of such immunity.
