COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, along with counterparts from Alaska and Wyoming, has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a legal framework for defining the limits of presidential immunity, citing the need for clear guidance in the face of unprecedented legal challenges.
The call comes as part of an amicus brief filed today in Trump v. United States, a case that could have far-reaching implications for the extent of immunity afforded to former presidents. Yost and his fellow attorneys general argue that establishing a legal test now would provide constitutional guardrails for future prosecutions, both civil and criminal, involving presidential immunity.
“In the same way that impeachment has apparently been normalized, it seems likely that we will see future cases in which a prosecutor charges a chief magistrate,” Yost stated, highlighting the gravity of the issue at hand.
Yost emphasized the importance of balancing presidential immunity with accountability, noting that while immunity is broad, it is not unlimited. He underscored the need for clear and steady-handed guidance from the highest court in the land.
The proposed legal test put forth by Yost consists of two factors. The first factor assesses the proximity of an alleged criminal action to the president’s core powers under Article II of the Constitution. The closer the action relates to a core presidential power, the stronger the case for immunity, according to the brief.
The second factor evaluates whether the urgency of the situation warranted the president’s actions, with times of heightened urgency, such as war, potentially justifying a greater degree of immunity.
In their brief, the attorneys general urge the Supreme Court to adopt this legal test and remand the matter for further proceedings and fact-finding, underscoring the need for clarity and consistency in matters of presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court agreed in February to decide in Trump v. United States whether, and to what extent, a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts during their tenure in office. The outcome of the case could have significant ramifications for future legal proceedings involving presidential immunity.