LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER

INTRODUCTION TO LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power  assignment involves reviewing two significant Supreme Court cases from 2020, Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, which explore the limits of presidential power and accountability. You will analyze the facts and rulings of these cases, discuss presidential immunity, compare related cases, and evaluate the influence of misinformation on judicial processes. Additionally, you will explore state provisions on executive privilege and propose amendments to clarify the issue.

What were the facts and the rulings in each case? What part of the Constitution was at issue in each case?

FACTS AND RULINGS

Trump v. Vance

• Summarize the subpoena issued by the Manhattan District Attorney for Trump’s financial records and the context of the criminal investigation.
• Describe LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power  the Supreme Court’s decision that the President does not have absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas.
• Identify the constitutional principles related to presidential immunity and state powers.

The case addressed a subpoena from the Manhattan District Attorney for Trump’s financial records for a criminal investigation. The Court ruled that the President does not have absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas, asserting that the Constitution does not categorically preclude these subpoenas (Trump v. Vance, 2020).

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

• Outline the congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records and the legislative context.
• Explain the Supreme Court’s decision that lower courts needed to better consider separation of powers concerns.
• Discuss the constitutional concerns related to separation of powers and congressional oversight.

The case concerned congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records. The Court held that lower courts had not adequately considered the separation of powers concerns and outlined broad considerations for assessing congressional subpoenas involving the President (Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 2020).

Given these cases, explain (citing the law) whether a U.S. president has absolute immunity from prosecution: (a) while in office, and (b) when no longer in office.

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

• Discuss LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power the limitations on presidential immunity based on Trump v. Vance, United States v. Nixon, and Clinton v. Jones.
• Explain that former Presidents are subject to legal actions like any private citizen.

While in office:

 The decision in Trump v. Vance aligns with precedents such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). These cases support the principle that the President is not above the law and does not enjoy absolute immunity from criminal investigation. For instance, in Nixon, the Supreme Court held that the President must comply with judicial subpoenas in the context of a criminal investigation, establishing that executive privilege is not absolute.

When no longer in office:

 Once a President leaves office, they are subject to legal actions just as any private citizen, losing any immunity they might have had. This principle was implicitly acknowledged in the reasoning of Nixon and Clinton, where the context of ongoing or potential future litigation against a former President was considered.

Do either or both United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) and/or Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1997) provide any support to Trump’s claims?  Explain.

SUPPORT FROM NIXON AND CLINTON CASES

• Analyze LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power how Nixon and Clinton cases undermine claims of absolute presidential immunity.

Example

Both Nixon and Clinton undermine claims of absolute presidential immunity. Nixon rejected presidential immunity in criminal proceedings, while Clinton allowed civil litigation against a sitting President for actions taken before taking office.

What legal or ethical influence, if any, did misinformation or disinformation have on the judicial analysis of any of these cases?  Did they affect the evolution of this area of law?  If not (yet), is there risk that it could?  If so, how, and can that be avoided?

INFLUENCE OF MISINFORMATION

• Evaluate LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power  the potential impact of misinformation on judicial processes and public trust.

Example

While misinformation did not directly influence the judicial outcomes of these cases, it poses a risk to public trust in judicial processes. Ensuring transparency and public understanding is vital to prevent misinformation from affecting legal precedents and public perceptions of judicial integrity.

What does your state provide regarding executive privilege for its governor, if anything?  How does it compare to what is available for the president?  If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about gubernatorial executive privilege.

STATE PROVISIONS ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

• Research LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power and explain your state’s provisions on executive privilege for the governor.

Example

Provisions vary, with some states allowing a degree of executive privilege similar to the federal model. Public opinion generally supports transparency and accountability, with variations based on local political culture.

What specific language would you add to or change in the federal (or, if appropriate for your state) Constitution so that the issue of executive privilege can be clear and not open to interpretation? Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change. Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

• Propose clear language to define and limit executive privilege.
• Evaluate LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power the importance of your proposed changes in the context of ongoing debates.

Example

A proposed amendment would explicitly define and limit the scope of executive privilege: “Executive privilege shall not exempt the President from compliance with judicial subpoenas but may be invoked to protect communications directly pertaining to national security, as assessed by a bipartisan congressional panel.”

The amendment aims to balance executive confidentiality with accountability, addressing debates on presidential accountability and clarifying legal ambiguities surrounding executive privilege.

CLOSING

By following LSTD-510 7-1 Presidential Power  these guidelines, you will be able to effectively analyze the limits of presidential power, evaluate relevant case law, and propose well-reasoned constitutional amendments to clarify executive privilege.In the next module of  LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure.

REFERENCES

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. (2020). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-715 

Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al. (2020). Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/19-635.html