The Supreme Court signaled willingness to grant US presidents some level of immunity from criminal prosecution for certain official acts, raising concerns about abuse of power and the potential for political retaliation. However, the contours of such immunity remain unclear, with the Court indicating a reluctance to embrace absolute immunity arguments.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a landmark case regarding the power of Congress to compel testimony from presidential advisors, potentially reshaping the doctrine of executive privilege. Peter Navarro, a former White House advisor, was convicted of contempt of Congress after refusing to testify before the January 6th investigation, invoking executive privilege as instructed by former President Donald Trump. The Court must determine whether Congress had the legal authority to subpoena Navarro and whether substantial issues have been raised in his appeal to warrant his release from prison pending further proceedings. Key legal questions, including the scope of executive privilege, the ability of a sitting president to revoke privilege, and the role of good-faith belief in contempt cases, will be considered.
