Greg Germain, a seasoned attorney and law professor at Syracuse University, expressed serious concerns about a recent Supreme Court ruling that potentially allows presidents to engage in unlawful acts without accountability. According to him, the decision grants presidents extensive immunity from prosecution, which could even enable them to commit acts like assassinating a political opponent or accepting bribes.
In response to this ruling, prosecutor Jack Smith filed a new indictment, but Germain believes Trump will successfully challenge it in the Supreme Court, resulting in its dismissal. He stated, “While lower courts might attempt to navigate around the Supreme Court’s decision, I firmly believe the election interference case is unlikely to survive at that level.”
Germain further noted that if Trump secures a win in the upcoming election, he could potentially pardon himself or appoint individuals within the Justice Department who might dismiss the case entirely. Trump has faced four counts for allegedly trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot, maintaining his stance of not guilty and labeling the charges a political witch hunt.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was a 6-3 decision on July 1, clarifying that presidents enjoy broad immunity related to their official duties. Although the Court highlighted that while official acts are protected, purely personal conduct is not, this leaves a substantial gray area regarding what constitutes ‘official acts’.
Germain shared his surprise at the extent of immunity granted, noting that it significantly diverges from a prior ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court, which had set a stricter standard. He explained, “While I anticipated that the Supreme Court would recognize broad presidential immunity tied to core functions, I mistakenly believed they would exclude clearly corrupt actions for personal gain.”
Emphasizing the implications of this ruling, Germain pointed out that it essentially shields presidents from prosecution for actions deemed corrupt, reiterating that, according to the ruling, only activities unrelated to presidential duties are prosecutable. The primary recourse for any public misconduct remains impeachment.
He concluded with a reflection on the original intentions of the constitutional framers, stating, “It’s hard to imagine that anyone from the Constitutional Convention would have agreed with this interpretation, especially given their concerns about corruption.”