As a former Judge and practicing attorney, I am aware of the profound impact that judicial decisions have on our legal system and society at large. In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several high-profile rulings that merit our attention and reflection. I am particularly pleased to see the Court ruled in favor of the defendants in the following significant cases, reinforcing important principles of justice and constitutional law:
Trump v. United States: This case centered on allegations against former President Trump, who was indicted for various actions arising out of the November 2020 election and the events of January 6, 2021. The indictment charged Trump with—among other things—(i) conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; (ii) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; and (iii) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. The specific legal question considered by the Supreme Court was:
“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken within their core constitutional authority. This decision emphasizes the importance of allowing Presidents to perform their essential duties without fear of legal repercussions. For other official acts, the Court “concluded” in dicta, without formally deciding, that the President has at least presumptive immunity, unless the government can demonstrate that “applying a criminal prohibition to the act would pose ‘no dangers on intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” The Court also made clear that there is no immunity for unofficial, private acts, thereby maintaining a necessary balance between presidential immunity for official duties and accountability for acts outside of a President’s official duties.
Importantly, this ruling protects key core presidential functions, such as commanding the Armed Forces of the United States, overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, managing matters related to terrorism, trade, and immigration, making appointments, bearing the responsibility for the actions of the many departments and agencies within the Executive Branch, and a litany of other roles exclusive to the President pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. It does so, regardless of the political affiliation of the President.
The ruling in this case is a victory for our Constitution; for the rule of law; and for the doctrine of separation of powers. By distinguishing between official and unofficial acts, the Supreme Court provides the guidance necessary to protect the functions of the Executive Branch through the grant of immunity to the President. The Supreme Court noted that there will still be questions about whether certain acts fall within official and unofficial duties going forward. But, with this decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that our nation's leaders should be protected from political opponents who may seek to weaponize the judicial system against them through criminal proceedings after their time in office—something we see happen in many countries around the world.
Fischer v. United States: In the significant case of Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court delivered a crucial ruling that clarifies and narrows the scope of the “obstruction of official proceeding” criminal charge derived from the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Notably, this statute was used to charge over 300 individuals in connection with the events of January 6, including former President Donald Trump and the petitioner in this case, Joseph W. Fischer. And, it was the basis for over 150 convictions and guilty pleas arising from that day.
Correctly, the Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion that this charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding” is much more limited in its application than the Department of Justice sought to enforce. More specifically, the Court ruled that,
“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.”
This decision to limit the scope of this criminal statute will most likely have the practical effect of undoing many of the January 6 criminal convictions that were based on it. And, this decision is crucial in safeguarding individuals from politically-motivated prosecutions for actions that go beyond the limited, plain reading of the statute. This decision aligns the law’s application with the original intent of Congress and reins in an overzealous Department of Justice looking to broaden the meaning of this criminal statute.
Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Dept of Commerce (Overturning Chevron): In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should “defer” to executive agencies’ interpretations of federal statutes so long as they were “reasonable”—even if the court took a different, independent reading of the statute. The recent Supreme Court decision in the cases of Bright and Relentless overruled this “Chevron deference” previously given to the agencies of the Executive Branch, and reined in the powers of the administrative agencies of the federal government. These decisions mark a significant shift in how courts approach agency interpretations of statutes, and will role back the power of those agencies to fill in gaps for laws passed by Congress. The Court emphasized that the judiciary has a fundamental responsibility to interpret laws independently. This means that courts must exercise their own judgment to determine whether an agency's actions align with its statutory authority, rather than simply relying on and giving deference to the agency’s interpretation of laws.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference safeguards judicial independence when interpreting statutes, promotes clarity and consistency in legal interpretations, enhances accountability in governance, and restores more balance of power between the three branches of government. In practice, it also reaffirms the responsibility of Congress to correctly draft statutes in the first place instead of abdicating such lawmaking to agencies of the Executive Branch. In sum, the Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference ensures our nation’s laws will no longer be interpreted and defined by unelected bureaucrats.
