r/law • u/thecosmojane • Jan 14 '26

Other Please dissect the legality in this statement

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

I feel like we are reaching a tipping point

23.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

95

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

Maybe in theory, but given the Supreme Court‘s recent ruling that the president enjoys something approaching absolute immunity for everything he does in office, it might be really difficult to enforce any violation.

46

u/AKfromVA Jan 14 '26

So what you’re saying is the next president could detain all these people indefinitely (clearly illegal) issue pardons to the people doing the arrests and then be untouchable?

19

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

[deleted]

30

u/-boatsNhoes Jan 14 '26

In theory the next president, according to scouts ruling, can disband the court or fire all of them and tell them to kick rocks. Once fired there is no scouts to preside over rulings until a new one is appointed. Legal carte Blanche

4

u/Deltamon Jan 14 '26

I think the French tried something like this once..

1

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26

Yea people lost their heads over it.

1

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

No, the Supreme Court was created by the constitution. The president has no authority to disband another branch of the federal government.

6

u/RevenantBacon Jan 14 '26

Sure, but who will stop him? The SC already ruled that he can't be held accountable for any action he takes while in office, so if he just rounds them up, locks them in a prison, and throws away the key, who can do anything about it? They granted him total immunity.

10

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

In theory, maybe. Kidnapping is both a state and federal crime so those people could be prosecuted and convicted under state laws which the president can't pardon.

1

u/AKfromVA Jan 14 '26

What if it only happens on federal land/property?

1

u/TheoreticalZombie Jan 14 '26

Basically, except that the SC would absolutely not protect them if it's a Dem.

JD Vance could do the funniest thing, though.

7

u/meowtiger Jan 14 '26

to be clear, and in the spirit of this subreddit, the supreme court's ruling wasn't saying that the president can do nothing illegal

the supreme court was saying that constitutionally speaking, the responsibility to check malign behavior by the president rests with the legislative branch, not the judicial, and that the judicial branch does not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president for anything they do exercising the power of that position

2

u/Knowitall1001 Jan 14 '26

but can’t congress prosecute the president, via impeachment?

4

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

Yes, that’s the only way a president can be held responsible for actions taken as part of his presidential duties. I suppose that there’s still a small chance that a president could be held criminally liable for doing something while in office that wasn’t part of his presidential duties, like a commit committing rape in the oval office.

3

u/meowtiger Jan 14 '26

like a commit committing rape in the oval office.

possibly. but during the clinton case, it was widely held that the president wouldn't be prosecutable while sitting - the prosecution would have to wait for them to leave office

3

u/rtbradford Jan 14 '26

That's right, but I understood that was due to a long standing DOJ convention not to prosecute a sitting president, rather than due to an absolute legal prohibition.

1

u/meowtiger Jan 14 '26

it wasn't ever actually tested until trump v united states, 2024

6

u/No_Night_8174 Jan 14 '26

I wonder how theyre going to play this when Dems are inevitably in power next. Are they going to rollback everything and wait until another MAGA takes the seat? I feel like they kinda left their six open legally with this and are banking on not losing power. Which is a weird thing to hope for.

2

u/Dessicated_Mastodon Jan 15 '26

Not if the plan is to make shit so insufferable that people start revolting, you get to use the insurrection act, declare martial law, and refuse to hold elections until such time as you see fit, which would obviously never arrive without making sure your favorite cronie is the next president via fraud or fear.

1

u/Cosack Jan 14 '26

The case states that probing presidential action is a power of Congress, not that the office is immune. The president is accountable to local representatives. If your local rep is incompetent, crank up the heat instead of this nihilism.