Adam Bonin: This Court doesn't decide questions not squarely before it, other than ruling *out* certain aspects of the J6 prosecution as being off the table.

"Don't worry, if the president imprisons his political enemies, you can still get a writ of habeas corpus." "But to prove that's why you've been imprisoned requires proof of..." "Presidential motive!" "And under Trump v US, presidential motive is..." "Inadmissible!"

Is evidence of motive inadmissible for the purposes of habeas, or just for the purpose of criminal prosecution of presidents and ex-presidents? I am not saying I have a lot of faith SCOTUS would not expand the principle, but I understood they had not done so yet.

We were talking about this in some of the other replies. The reasoning of Harlow/Trump hinges on the effect of the president's awareness that sensitive discussions could be scrutinized, but as @adambonin.bsky.social points out Roberts introduces that with language referencing criminal prosecution.

imo the decision can't logically be limited notwithstanding the criminal prosecution language, but the court obviously hasn't decided the question yet.

This Court doesn't decide questions not squarely before it, other than ruling *out* certain aspects of the J6 prosecution as being off the table.

Ha! And, you know, the status of thousands of agency interpretations that aren't before it. And the procedures Congress must use to exercise section 3. But I digress.

Post