Letter to the editor teaser

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning an unprecedented case to determine if a president has absolute immunity.

Because the United States has a very clear civilian-military relationship, the case has inspired 19 retired four-star admirals and generals, and former secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, who have served under every president from John F. Kennedy to Donald J. Trump, to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court warning of disastrous results should the court agree with former President Trump’s theory of presidential immunity.

The brief states: “Petitioner’s theory that the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, if accepted, has the potential to severely undermine the commander-in-chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law. Under this theory, the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders, placing those in the chain of command in an untenable position and irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations. ….”

For those who support our servicemen and women, the amicus brief also explains the position presidential immunity would put them in: “(T)he rule of law is critical to the military’s mission and to the people’s trust in the armed forces. The military service members’ duty to disobey unlawful orders plainly illustrates this point. This duty requires service members, who are bound to obey all lawful orders, to disregard patently unlawful orders from their superiors and prohibits service members from using such orders as a defense to criminal prosecution. Immunizing the commander-in-chief from criminal prosecution… would fly in the face of that duty, creating the likelihood that service members will be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between following their commander-in-chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress.”

Catherine Matthias

Joseph