The Supreme Court just gave Trump a 'license to kill' — and he's using it: analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts at the University of Kentucky's Rosenberg College of Law on July 13, 2022 (LawAnalyzer40526/Wikimedia)

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial 6-3 immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States in 2024, some scathing dissent came from one of the Barack Obama appointees: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the decision gave the federal government's executive branch way too much power.

The High Court's GOP-appointed supermajority ruled that U.S. presidents enjoy absolute immunity for "official" acts committed in office but not for "unofficial" acts. And Sotomayor argued that using that standard, a president could assassinate a political rival, claim it was an "official" act, and enjoy total immune from criminal prosecution. Progressive legal expert Elie Mystal, a vehement critic of the decision, warned that there is a huge difference between "qualified immunity" and "absolute immunity" — and Trump v. the United States promised U.S. presidents absolute immunity.

In an article published on October 4, Salon's Heather Digby Parton emphasizes that the High Court's decision makes President Donald Trump's military actions against Venezuelan boats all the more dangerous.

"What happens when a leader of a democratic country believes he has a license to kill and proceeds to use it?," Parton warns. "It appears we are finding out. During the arguments in Donald J. Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court case that conferred immunity from prosecution for presidents committing crimes in the course of their official duties, the prospect of a president ordering Seal Team Six to carry out assassinations of political opponents was raised to illustrate the breadth of powers being considered. …. Right now, we are being forced to consider whether the president of the United States can legally order the military to murder 'non-international' civilians he has unilaterally declared to be drug trafficking terrorists."

Parton notes that on Friday, (October 3), U.S. forces "launched a strike on a boat off the coast of Venezuela that the administration claimed was trafficking drugs.

"Four people were killed, bringing the total number of casualties from all four strikes to 21," Parton observes. "As he has done with each operation, Trump took to Truth Social to brag: 'A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth chimed in on X, 'Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike and no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation.' No evidence has been provided about the alleged drug trafficking operations."

Parton continues, "When questions have been raised about the legality of the strikes, the (Trump) Administration has brushed them aside. No evidence has been provided about the alleged drug trafficking operations…. Since we have not heard of any member of the military objecting to this action, it would seem that the reassurances we all received that the military would never agree to undertake an illegal order were a bit overblown. They are murdering civilians on the high seas on the president's order."

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles