In the Supreme Court's monumental decision in former President Trump's immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump's unprecedented prosecution – was constitutionally appointed.
On Monday, a 6-3 majority ruled that a president has substantial immunity for official acts in office, and sent the case back down to lower courts to determine which acts at the center of Trump's case were official.
"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive," the opinion said.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to "highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure" – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.
@ISIDEWITH2 dies2D
How would you react if a decision made by the Supreme Court seemed to favor the president over the principles of justice and constitutionality?
@ISIDEWITH2 dies2D
Is it important for the justice system to have the power to challenge presidential immunity, or does this risk undermining presidential authority?
@ISIDEWITH2 dies2D
Should the appointment of officials like special counsels who investigate presidents be more heavily scrutinized for constitutional compliance?
@ISIDEWITH2 dies2D
How do you feel about the balance between a president's power and accountability to the law?
@ISIDEWITH2 dies2D
Do you think it's fair for a president to have immunity for actions taken while in office?
