Ed.Note: Welcome to our daily special, “Word of the Day.''
When the Nixon decision was handed down, I thought it would give future presidents an opportunity to assert executive privilege, which is not a well-established principle, but that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution. I never thought that it would lead to the claim. And yet, here we are.
— Philippe Lacovara, a former Watergate special counsel, expressed concern that the Supreme Court would expand the concept of presidential immunity to former President Donald Trump in comments to the ABA Journal. He talked about why he did it. “I'm concerned that there will be at least some support for him in the courts, which raises the question of whether the Constitution provides immunity for acts that are allegedly within the president's powers. It's shown by how they reconfigured it,'' Rakovara said. “The way they formulated the question was, is there constitutional immunity if a former president claims to be acting on behalf of the president? That's the most extravagant formulation for Trump. Mr. Trump. I'm sure there are judges out there who would like to be acquitted or exempted from a criminal trial.”
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she has worked since 2011. She would love to hear from you, so if you have any tips, questions, comments, or critiques, feel free to email them.she can follow her X/Twitter Connect with her on Threads or LinkedIn.
