I've been watching some reaction/interpretation to this ruling. The worst part of it seems to be, if an act is initially deemed as "official", then the president cannot even be investigated or asked questions about the discussions had to make that decision. Even though Barrett sided with the majority, she actually dissented on this part because the inability to even scrutinise the discussions or actions between a president and the DOJ means that "unofficial" acts in the pursuit of official ones can never be investigated. So, in theory, there will never be an ability to investigate a President, because even if every unofficial and illegal act is use to achieve the goals of an "official" action, the very nature of it being official means nothing else matters and you can't ask questions and you can never investigate to argue that an "official act" is actually "unofficial".
Once an act is deemed official, there will never be a possibility to hold that person to account.
That is absolutely terrifying.
It is far worse than that. They are just scratching the surface of what it actually means. This is another ruling, in a string of rulings, that fundamentally change the presidency and empowers the office to basically make the executive branch an extension of the presidents personal ambitions with no checks and balances. One step closer to an autocracy.
If all official actions are immune to criminal liability, there is an opening to make the case that all actions by the executive branch overrule settled law. After all, if you are immune to criminal liability, technically you can not break the law. Essentially, what the president orders is legal. Take a step back and look at that within the context of the suggestions outlined by project 2025 and their "unitary executive theory". They argue that in the US constitution the office of the president
is the executive branch. The various offices that serve the executive branch are there to essentially provide administrative support for the office. As it is, the administration of which is governed by the law and limitations imposed by it. So what happens if the entire federal bureaucracy is put under direct control of the president?
This is where a new problem opens up. By making a distinction between unofficial acts and official acts, and more or less giving official acts blanket immunity - the office of the president is incapable of breaking the law. With unitary executive theory there is no separation between the federal bureaucracy and the office of the president - essentially what the federal bureaucracy does are official acts of the president. So what recourse does the legislative branch, the judiciary and "the people" have if/when an executive action is illegal? Is Impeachment the only option? Can the government suspend habeas corpus? Muzzle the media? Does it even need congress or can the president just rule unchallenged through executive action now? These are issues they have not even begun to try to answer.
