Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump impact on immunity and Trump v US hypothetical
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Background
Trump v. United States (Docket No. 23-939) held that the president is immune from article 2 official acts and other official acts that raise Separation of Powers issues.
During oral arguments a hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for article 2 powers like appointing an ambassador could not be prosecuted nor could POTUS' motivations be questioned or used as evidence in prosecuting any related bribery case.
Before Learning Resource Inc, one could argue that Trump's acts were official and there were Seperation of Powers issues as Congress had delegated its tarrif power and criminalizing it usurps Congress' authority to delegate. (Kind of a weird Separation of Powers issues, I admit.)
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that POTUS has no authority to Tarrif countries using IEEPA as the administration has done to date.
Questions
If we apply a very similar hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for tarrif levels set by IEEPA authority, how does Trump v US apply.
Since the IEEPA tariffs are now held unlawful, is the act of setting tariffs using IEEPA now considered an unofficial act? Could POTUS be prosecuted? Could evidence of POTUS accepting bribes be used to prosecute others involved?
Or we're setting the tariffs never covered under Trump V US as there was no Separation of Powers issues and no immunity.
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Background
Trump v. United States (Docket No. 23-939) held that the president is immune from article 2 official acts and other official acts that raise Separation of Powers issues.
During oral arguments a hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for article 2 powers like appointing an ambassador could not be prosecuted nor could POTUS' motivations be questioned or used as evidence in prosecuting any related bribery case.
Before Learning Resource Inc, one could argue that Trump's acts were official and there were Seperation of Powers issues as Congress had delegated its tarrif power and criminalizing it usurps Congress' authority to delegate. (Kind of a weird Separation of Powers issues, I admit.)
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that POTUS has no authority to Tarrif countries using IEEPA as the administration has done to date.
Questions
If we apply a very similar hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for tarrif levels set by IEEPA authority, how does Trump v US apply.
Since the IEEPA tariffs are now held unlawful, is the act of setting tariffs using IEEPA now considered an unofficial act? Could POTUS be prosecuted? Could evidence of POTUS accepting bribes be used to prosecute others involved?
Or we're setting the tariffs never covered under Trump V US as there was no Separation of Powers issues and no immunity.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump impact on immunity and Trump v US hypothetical
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Background
Trump v. United States (Docket No. 23-939) held that the president is immune from article 2 official acts and other official acts that raise Separation of Powers issues.
During oral arguments a hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for article 2 powers like appointing an ambassador could not be prosecuted nor could POTUS' motivations be questioned or used as evidence in prosecuting any related bribery case.
Before Learning Resource Inc, one could argue that Trump's acts were official and there were Seperation of Powers issues as Congress had delegated its tarrif power and criminalizing it usurps Congress' authority to delegate. (Kind of a weird Separation of Powers issues, I admit.)
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that POTUS has no authority to Tarrif countries using IEEPA as the administration has done to date.
Questions
If we apply a very similar hypothetical of POTUS accepting bribes for tarrif levels set by IEEPA authority, how does Trump v US apply.
Since the IEEPA tariffs are now held unlawful, is the act of setting tariffs using IEEPA now considered an unofficial act? Could POTUS be prosecuted? Could evidence of POTUS accepting bribes be used to prosecute others involved?
Or we're setting the tariffs never covered under Trump V US as there was no Separation of Powers issues and no immunity.
0 Comments
0 Shares
40 Views
0 Reviews
