@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika Note that the Circuit Court, which heard the case prior to the Supremes, took the view several of you (at least early in our conversation) suggest this decision does: that if the President's action was beyond the law, it could not be protected.
But the Supreme Court does not endorse the Circuit's view. It reviewed that case, and overturned it.
Text: From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former Pres- ident for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in de- fiance of the Congress’s laws.” 91 F. 4th, at 1191. In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly vio- lated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion.” Id., at 1192. The D. C. Circuit thus concluded that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment.” Ibid.