Presidential Immunity Debate

If this was an order from the President as an official act, no scrutiny can be applied here in any court (broad immunity recently granted by the SCOTUS: absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts)... so good luck proving any wrongdoing without any evidence...If you go after any of the underlings who executed such order, they are likely getting auto-pardonned by Trump if he gave the order (otherwise it will make it harde

He doesn't have the power to do that. If he does and gets away with it, don't complain when that power is abused by other presidents in ways you disapprove.

Anyone can do whatever they want regardless of the rules. However, presidents do not have impunity. Presidents and their EOs can be held accountable by Congress and the courts.

It's about whether the president can legally do this.

Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. There are reasonable disagreements on where Presidential authority begins or ends on many topics, and you want the limits to be either through separation of powers (e.g., the Judicial Branch can bring an end to actions, the Legislative can impeach and remove the President) or through the ballot box.This does not mean

Would the president have that authority?

The emperor isn't deciding this. The president is using authority which is granted to him by law. In this case a law which includes a means for Congress to overrule his decision if it wishes.

I think that comment is referring to Trump v. United States, where the court said that a president cannot be held accountable for using a Constitutional authority to break the law. It is very literally "a blank mandate to break the law".For example, a president is granted authority to command the military and issue pardons. They have absolute immunity for any act performed using these authorities, including illegal acts such as assassinating or deporting a political opponent or acce

The Burrito Supreme Court said that they and no other are the sole arbiter of what constitutes an "official act" by The President. And, that he is immune from prosecution for "official acts". Congress has simultaneously abdicated lawmaking and has decided to let the president make policy via executive orders. I think most people have forgotten E.O.s are merely directives to the executive branch departments about how to implement the laws congress passes. Or, at least they wer

Apparently they can.I don't mean to be glib, but I'm not aware of prohibition against it, and if they had done it, it is quite possible that either Congress or the courts could force them to renege on the decision. (The President has ultimate authority over them, so he could always order the decision reversed, but that's normal chain of command, not checks-and-balances.) But legally, it appears they do have that power.