(My son Stuart Jordan wrote the following article.)

Two Supreme Court decisions of enormous importance came down recently.  While most conservatives believe these cases were correctly decided, many liberals believe otherwise.

WIkipedia states “On June 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (2024) that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts which fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority”. For those official acts that do not fall within this inner core, but nevertheless within “the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, a president enjoys at least a presumptive immunity. When it comes to unofficial acts, there is no immunity.  The case was returned to the lower courts to determine whether Trump’s actions related to the January 6, 2021 attacks on the U.S. Capitol were official or not, and if so, then to which degree of immunity they would be entitled.”

Certainly many people – including the majority of the Supreme Court – believe the President should have immunity from prosecution for all constitutionally-authorized decisions.  Otherwise, he/she could be exposed to the whims of any court and jury in the land for every decision made. Critics on the left are saying the recent Supreme Court decision means the President could order Seal Team 6 or even drones to kill his political opponents and get away with it. This is a ridiculous assertion.   First, all U.S. government employees and all members of the U.S. armed forces have the right and even the responsibility to refuse to obey illegal orders – not only the 1946 judgements at Nuremberg say this, but also U.S. law.  Indeed, while the President might not go to jail for authorizing a targeted assassination, those who carried it out could.  Saying “I was only obeying orders” is never an excuse. 

Second, the President can always be impeached and removed from office for issuing directives or performing acts for personal gain, but he/she shouldn’t be threatened with a lawsuit or jail for official actions, no matter how repugnant. As one example, based on Presidential findings, the President might authorize a worthwhile clandestine operation that involved activities of a very unpleasant and perhaps questionable legal nature, but such is the world we live in.  Do we really want each President threatened with lawsuit or jail over every such decision? On the other hand, if the president were to rape and kill someone, that would certainly not be in line with Presidential duties or official responsibilities.  The 25th amendment would probably be invoked and the scoundrel would immediately stand trial. A guilty verdict would result in that individual being cast out of office and sent directly to prison. 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”  This opinion appears to strike a reasonable balance.

The other important decision overturned the so-called “Chevron” doctrine.  Commenting on this decision, the Norton Rose Fulbright Law Firm wrote the following on their website:

“The US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), will profoundly impact multiple industries regulated by federal agencies that have grown accustomed to being the ultimate arbiter of ambiguous language in their applicable laws, rules and regulations. Those days are over—courts no longer have to defer to federal agencies when resolving such ambiguities.”

Apparently, fishermen were being charged up to $700 daily to transport U.S. government officials on board their vessels for environmental and harvest monitoring purposes, a crushing “unfunded mandate” if ever there was one.  While federally unfunded mandates have been largely prohibited since 1992, this was a government regulatory agency’s decision based on their own interpretation of Congressional legislation..

Does this mean that all restrictions and regulations set in place by government agencies are suspect and need to be set aside?  Hopefully not, but all should receive judicial oversight and review.  Otherwise, using loosely written Congressional legislation, a regulatory arm of the U.S. government can establish and define terms and conditions for enforcement at their whim, touching nearly every aspect of our lives. This is something no one should want.