Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
Comment
Corey Brettschneider

The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law

person in black uniform stands at steps in front of white building with columns
‘The irony of the ruling is that it allows prosecution for former presidents only in the areas where their power is the least dangerous.’ Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just place Donald Trump above the law. The true danger of the opinion is that it could protect precisely the kind of official acts that might destroy the American republic itself.

The origin of the idea that the official acts of a president are immune from prosecution is found in a case about a fired whistleblower. In 1970, President Richard Nixon fired A Ernest Fitzgerald, an air force management analyst, in retaliation for his publicizing information about cost overruns. Fitzgerald brought a civil suit against Nixon, seeking damages for his dismissal. The supreme court sided with Nixon, granting the president absolute immunity from “damages liability predicated on his official acts”.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.