BNCL Law Firm - Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy

Presidential Immunity: A Threat to Civil Rights?

July 3, 2024

Lady of justice crying

The recent Supreme Court decision granting presidents, including former President Donald Trump, robust immunity from criminal prosecution has sent shockwaves through the legal and civil rights communities. At Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry, and Lacy (BNCL), we understand the profound implications this ruling could have on civil rights and the principles of justice we have fought to uphold for decades.

 

Understanding the Ruling
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., stated that while “the President is not above the law,” he “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers” and is entitled to “presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” This decision essentially shields a president from criminal charges related to actions taken in their official capacity, raising concerns about accountability and the potential for abuse of power.

 

The Civil Rights Perspective
At BNCL, we have dedicated our practice to defending individuals’ civil rights against powerful institutions, including the Government. This ruling, which could potentially allow a president to engage in conduct that undermines democracy and individual rights without fear of criminal prosecution, is deeply troubling. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the danger this decision poses: “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

 

Historical Context and Future Implications
Historically, no president has faced criminal charges for actions taken while in office, and the Supreme Court’s decision aims to preserve this tradition. However, this ruling comes at a time of unprecedented partisanship and a former president facing severe allegations related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. “This new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.” “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.

 

Impact on Civil Rights and Justice
This decision could have far-reaching consequences for civil rights. It sets a precedent that could embolden future presidents to engage in unlawful activities without fear of accountability. As a firm committed to fighting for justice, BNCL recognizes the danger this poses to the rule of law and the protection of civil rights. If a president can act with impunity, the risk of violations of individual rights, especially for marginalized communities, increases significantly.

 

The Role of BNCL in Upholding Justice
At BNCL, we have a long history of challenging abuses of power, from police misconduct to racial and sexual discrimination. This ruling underscores the importance of our work in holding powerful entities accountable and ensuring that everyone, regardless of their position, is subject to the law. Our commitment to protecting civil rights remains unwavering, and we will continue to advocate for justice and equality.

 

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity marks a significant moment in American legal history, with profound implications for civil rights. It reminds us of the ongoing struggle to uphold the principles of justice and accountability. BNCL remains dedicated to fighting for the rights of all individuals and ensuring that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
Visit our resource section for more information on your rights and how BNCL can help protect them. Contact us for a consultation if you believe your civil rights have been violated.
Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Read More
Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
John Burris
Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Read More
Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
Rodney King
Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Read More
Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
FEATURED News & Updates

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

Watch our video
Share via
Copy link