Immunity

"The Supreme Court, in Trump, provides the basis for ... a prudential approach going forward."

Three major flaws in the Trump v. United States majority opinion derive from the Court’s failure to examine and differentiate the source and scope of presidential power -- whether…

Legal experts Ryan Goodman, Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck unpack what Trump v. United States means for presidential immunity.  

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Supreme Court's majority granted “former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.” 

The Court set forth a legal framework for the criminal justice system to respond to a president committing federal crimes while in office.

To overcome personal immunities, a proposed Ukraine-CoE special tribunal must act on behalf of the international community as a whole.

Editor’s Note: This article is part of the Armed Groups and International Law Symposium, building on the volume edited by Katharine Fortin and Ezequiel Heffes. During international…

Mapping different outcomes for the Court's decision on Trump's presidential immunity and the follow-on procedural pathways emerging from those scenarios.

Drilling into the foundations of an idea - the 'plain statement rule' - discussed in Supreme Court oral argument on former President Trump's claims to presidential immunity.

History shows the Supreme Court can come to a decision soon after oral arguments. It must do so on the question of presidential immunity.

"We suggest questions that Justices might ask the parties at oral argument, questions that can help clarify key issues at hand and force the parties to set out their reasoning."

There is now a clear majority of support for draft Article 7, at least to the extent that it provides for the inapplicability of functional immunity to the crimes of genocide,…