David Noll: "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!"

"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!"

"But the president discussed their intent with their aides." "But those discussions are..." "Inadmissible!"

Not a fan of this new Beastie Boys track.

It’s funny how even I, a rando German, understood this instantly Yet there are people who dropped their brain in a jar somewhere running around as law professor zombies

Strictly speaking, you can get a writ of habeas corpus by showing that there is no legal basis for detention, which does not require showing an improper motive. But that means your liberty will depend on whether the President's lawyers can come up with any legitimate reason. Cf. Trump v. Hawaii.

(I know that you know all this. Just adding this point for non-lawyer readers.)

And if the court issues the writ anyway and the President just ignores it... then what?

I'd say the fastest way to have that undone would be for Biden to go and do it, but they'd just play calvinball.

There's also numerous practical problems with that idea. Leaving aside that Biden never WOULD do it, there's the reality that doing so would be an electoral disaster for Democrats (such ethical issues don't seem to be a problem for the GOP electorate, which creates an impossible double standard).

There’s time after the election for him to do it

I still don't think he would, as the Democrats don't understand the rules keep changing. That said, I would 100% support him -- win or lose -- going bonkers immediately after the election.

I'm actually not as sure on this part. The ruling clearly says you can't use such evidence in a prosecution of the President; I'm not sure if it means such evidence can't be used in any other proceeding (though, of course, that's not foreclosed here).

The basis for the evidentiary bar is the chilling effect on presidential deliberations if the president knew his actions could be reexamined in court. That seems to sweep in all kinds of proceedings, and the court certainly thinks it applies to civil suits.

That said, I'd certainly distinguish it on the basis you suggest if I were filing a habeas petition.

I think we'd both agree that there's language in the middle here which suggests "the President shouldn't have to feel like he's being scrutinized, and juries shouldn't scrutinize official acts because bias," but it's bookended by language cabining this to prosecutions of a President. (For now.)

Exactly, that's the grey area that will be colored based on who the president is and who the accused is.

It will be colored based on whether they want to go to war with Trump. I can skip to the end on this one, not one of those six has the courage to start that fight.

Your comment assumes they actually want to restrain him

They will eventually, individually, over different issues. None of them will seriously consider it.

I think this actually isn't right--it's inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the former president, not in any case or proceeding.

It’s a gray area that would requires months of motions and appeals to resolve (immunity is immunity is immunity, regardless of context) so you better get comfortable in that cell.

I do think there’s something in this if the case is about the political prisoner’s innocence (rather than the guilt of any President)

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.

I don’t like this version of the Aristocrats

I’m going to need a Schoolhouse Rock reboot to explain this new system of Government.

I’m working on my Project 2025 song now: “I’m a corrupt civil servant/got this job don’t deserve it, never earned it…there’s a new fee at this agency/it goes straight to me/oh we met at a MAGA rally? For you good sir it’s free!” Etc Maybe once I’m done with that one.

Thinking about one of those corny old dance craze songs “Do the Dictator” (“Smash! Smash!”) for the immunity one.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFN...

You'll Be Backwww.youtube.com YouTube video by Jonathan Groff - Topic

This is as insane as it sounds

I live in a country with an actual king and pretty sure he's not allowed to do such despotic things. If you want Charles III you're very welcome to him.

That’s because your king was restrained by parliament long ago precisely because previous kings had acted as absolutists. Despite centuries of stopping absolutism in Europe and the five alarm fire warning from the Founders not to let this happen here the court said “hey lets give tyranny a whirl.”

Well, as is clear I don't live in the US but it looks like your options are: 1. Get people registered and to the polls 2. Supply money to those efforts 3. Shout at people online about not being happy about voting Biden. Which will get chosen and boosted I wonder? :-?

Bonkers. No criminal case could be brought against the president, but the evidence could be used in any other case. There is a ton of jurisdiction about that, because a lot of people enjoy even a broader immunity compared with the "half immunity" the SCOTUS granted to the POTUS.

Another point here is that a court can issue an order for anyone, including potus, to follow the law. Enforcing the order would be another matter. Yes I’ve seen the argument there is no remedy bc no enforcement but if the remedy sought is purely an order.. SCOTUS did order potus Nixon, the tapes

There was a time when a president might think “I can ignore this court order but after I leave office I might be charged with a crime.” That thin reed of restraint has been plowed up.

I wouldn’t worry about it. I’m sure your Star Chamber will just bring a Bill of Attainder. What do you mean they are outlawed by The Constitution? We’ll just call them Don’s of Palship.

Actually motive is clearly inadmissible in a prosecution of the president, but dues the ruling actually make it inadmissible in a Habeas case concerning the right to liberty of an imprisoned plaintiff? Wouldn’t seem that that would impair the legitimate functioning the executive.

Post