Quinta Jurecic: Additionally, isn’t there a significant distinction between absolute or presumptive immunity for conduct and whether the conduct is legal/whether an advice of counsel defense is available?

let's do the seal team six hypo. president orders st6 to assassinate a political rival bc rival is a threat to national security. possible this is absolutely immune under pres's commander in chief power. if it's not, then it gets presumptive immunity (which may be absolute anyway)

if your instinct is "calm down, surely this is an exaggeration," allow me to assure you that it's really not

Serious q: Do you think there should be a public authority exception to relevant statutes (e.g., federal murder statute) in case of targeted killing of US citizens? The DoJ has already signed off on that. Because then the main difference in your hypo is who counts as a political rival?

I haven’t thought deeply about the public authority exception, but I’m comfortable saying that this opinion goes far beyond that. What’s your view?

Additionally, isn’t there a significant distinction between absolute or presumptive immunity for conduct and whether the conduct is legal/whether an advice of counsel defense is available?

But the point is that the al-Awlaki killing etc. never even reach the courts, so no defenses or immunities even necessary, at least so far.

Yes, my point is that this is an expansion beyond the protection that the Al-awlaki olc opinion provides

I have no problem with the president facing criminal charges for ordering the extrajudicial execution of US citizens. Is it really that hard to fathom that the Rule of Law applies to the president, too?

If you're a "well tipped" Supreme Court Justice, then yes

Post