Skip to main content
Law

Return to Question

Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Source Link
Jen
Jen
  • 61.3k
  • 5
  • 126
  • 268

In the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, the courtCourt found that there is absolute immunity for actions within the president's "exclusive sphere", and presumptive immunity for official acts outside of that sphere. To defeat a claim of presumptive immunity, a prosecutor must show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch’".

This apparently requires the prosecutor to prove a rather strong negative; that there is no danger, not even a small or far-fetched danger. Has the courtCourt proposed any examples in which a certain set of facts would be sufficient to meet this standard for overcoming a claim of presumptive immunity?

In the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, the court found that there is absolute immunity for actions within the president's "exclusive sphere", and presumptive immunity for official acts outside of that sphere. To defeat a claim of presumptive immunity, a prosecutor must show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch’".

This apparently requires the prosecutor to prove a rather strong negative; that there is no danger, not even a small or far-fetched danger. Has the court proposed any examples in which a certain set of facts would be sufficient to meet this standard for overcoming a claim of presumptive immunity?

In the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, the Court found that there is absolute immunity for actions within the president's "exclusive sphere", and presumptive immunity for official acts outside of that sphere. To defeat a claim of presumptive immunity, a prosecutor must show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch’".

This apparently requires the prosecutor to prove a rather strong negative; that there is no danger, not even a small or far-fetched danger. Has the Court proposed any examples in which a certain set of facts would be sufficient to meet this standard for overcoming a claim of presumptive immunity?

Source Link
kaya3
kaya3
  • 1k
  • 4
  • 20

Has the Supreme Court given any examples where presumptive immunity would be overcome?

In the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, the court found that there is absolute immunity for actions within the president's "exclusive sphere", and presumptive immunity for official acts outside of that sphere. To defeat a claim of presumptive immunity, a prosecutor must show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch’".

This apparently requires the prosecutor to prove a rather strong negative; that there is no danger, not even a small or far-fetched danger. Has the court proposed any examples in which a certain set of facts would be sufficient to meet this standard for overcoming a claim of presumptive immunity?