The Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) appeared before the Supreme Court to argue that drone strikes on American citizens are permissible because the Obama DOJ deemed it so, while questioning election results is not acceptable because the government has also indicated as such.
During the Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity, special counsel Jack Smith accused former President Donald Trump of potentially facing jail time for contesting the 2020 election results. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised hypothetical scenarios to DOJ attorney Michael Dreeben about the extent of presidential authority, including questioning President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1976.
Dreeben argued that certain presidential responsibilities are beyond Congress’s regulation, including instances like President Obama’s drone strikes. He explained that the DOJ carefully analyzed the legality of these actions and determined that they were within the law, providing a framework for the president to act without fear of prosecution.
The discussion also highlighted how Obama’s use of over 560 drone strikes, resulting in civilian casualties, was not subject to prosecution due to clearance from his own DOJ. Despite admitting that at least four Americans were killed in these strikes, three of whom were not intentional targets, Obama and his administration faced no legal consequences.
The conservative justices expressed doubts about the lack of presidential immunity, with Justice Samuel Alito emphasizing the potential ramifications of indicting a president for actions taken while in office. Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity is crucial for the proper functioning of the presidency, as without it, the president’s decision-making process would be distorted by the fear of prosecution.
Overall, the discussion at the Supreme Court underscored the complexity of presidential immunity and the challenges of holding presidents accountable for their official actions.
