Supreme Court gave ‘no green light for death squads’ – lawyer

Attorney Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Saturday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity was not a “green light for death squads,” citing what he saw as exaggerated claims by “the left and the media.”

In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the court ruled that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial ones. The decision came more than nine weeks after former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, brought his immunity case before the justices.

In an op-ed for The Hill published Saturday titled “Stop the Death Squads: Extremely Misleading Reporting on the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision,” Turley, a professor at George Washington University School of Law, highlighted some recent reporting on the court’s decision.

On Monday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reacted live to the ruling, saying, “This is a death squad ruling. This ruling says you can do absolutely anything as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act. Absolutely anything, and you will never be held accountable for it, not just when you are president, but forever.”

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden said at the White House on Monday: “From a practical perspective, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits to what a president can do.”

Turley, a self-described libertarian who testified against Trump in the first and second impeachment trials, wrote in his op-ed: “In fairness to the critics, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent lent credibility to their exaggerated theories.”

The three liberal-leaning justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority opinion.

Sotomayor wrote in the ruling: “The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world. If he uses his official powers in any way, the majority now holds that he is immune from criminal prosecution. Does he order the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Does he organize a military coup to stay in power? Immune. Does he accept bribes in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that explicitly refute such claims,” ​​Turley wrote in his article. “In fact, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged ‘private scheme with private actors’ to create alternate slates of voters ‘cannot be clearly classified as part of a specific presidential function.’ If that is determined by the Court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any kind of immunity.”

The former president and his allies are accused of creating and presenting forged certificates to falsely claim that Trump had won the Electoral College votes in certain states in order to undermine Biden’s election victory.

Turley added on Saturday: “This is a long way from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a list of false electors but could order a whole series of political assassinations has little support in actual opinion.”

The legal expert said Newsweek via email on Sunday: “As set out in the opinion, the Court has drawn the limits of immunity consistent with centuries-old practices and past rulings. Presidents are not immune from prosecution. The only absolute immunity is for core presidential functions, such as the pardon power. The rest is either unprotected (unofficial or personal acts) or only presumptively protected (other official functions).”

“The investigations that will now take place in New York, Florida and Washington refute the exaggerated predictions that we would somehow replace Madisonian democracy with a John Wick republic,” Turley said, referring to the criminal charges against Trump, all of which he has pleaded not guilty to.

Newsweek has emailed Trump spokesman Steven Cheung for comment. The company has also emailed the White House for comment and MSNBC has emailed Maddow for comment.

In an attempt to dismiss Trump’s federal election interference charges, the former president’s lawyers argued before the court that he had immunity from prosecution because his alleged actions related to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, were protected by presidential immunity.

On that fateful day, a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, in an unsuccessful attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s 2020 election victory after Trump claimed the election was stolen through widespread voter fraud. There is no evidence to support such claims.

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on four counts in a case brought by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempted obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to violate rights. Trump has claimed the case is politically motivated against him.

Update 7/7/24, 10:29 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Turley.