Barb Van Andel-Gaby Chairman of Heritage Foundation - Economy | Official Website
The Supreme Court, in the case of Trump v. United States, has ruled that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for their core constitutional powers and a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
John G. Malcolm, Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, commented on the decision: "In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton decried feebleness in a president and said that an effective president must be prepared to act energetically, decisively, and with dispatch if he is to best serve our national interests. The President of the United States should never fear the possibility of being criminally prosecuted after leaving office for decisions he made while in office—especially in times of crisis."
Malcolm further stated: "Today, the Supreme Court recognized and breathed life into the important constitutional principle of separation of powers by providing former, current, and future presidents with absolute immunity for official acts that they undertook during their administrations and also made it clear that the burden falls on the prosecution to demonstrate that any action taken by a former president clearly falls beyond the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities and on the side of being an unofficial act. The Court made it clear that Trump’s contacts with the Justice Department fall within the scope of official acts and that his contacts with Vice President Pence as well as most, if not all, of his public statements will fall within that scope."
Malcolm emphasized: "Without these protections, our presidents might well face unjust prosecutions by ambitious and politically biased prosecutors once they leave office, which would have a chilling effect that could harm our national interests and would do great damage to the institution of the presidency."
Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage Foundation added: "Presidents must have the ability to make decisions without fear of going to jail. Prosecuting official acts taken in office sets a dangerous precedent for future presidencies. Policy disagreements could quickly lead to throwing presidential opponents behind bars. That is un-American."
Von Spakovsky concluded: "The Supreme Court made the right call today and forever changed the office of the presidency for the better."
