Ed. note: Welcome to our daily feature, Quote of the Day.
When the Nixon case was decided, I thought that while it would give subsequent presidents the opportunity to claim executive privilege, which was not an established doctrine, I never thought it would lead to a former president claiming immunity from criminal prosecution. Yet here we are.
— Philip Lacovara, who served as counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, in comments given to the ABA Journal on why he fears that the Supreme Court may expand the concept of presidential immunity for former president Donald Trump. “I’m concerned that there might be at least some support for him on the court, and that’s indicated by how they reformulated the question, which is to ask whether the Constitution provides immunity for actions that are allegedly within the scope of presidential power,” Lacovara said. “The way they formulated the question was if the former president alleges that he was acting as president, is there constitutional immunity? That’s the most indulgent formulation for Trump’s benefit. I’m pretty certain there are some justices who want to see Trump exonerated or spared from criminal trial.”
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on X/Twitter and Threads or connect with her on LinkedIn.
