U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the implications of prosecuting former presidents like Donald Trump for actions taken during their tenure, suggesting it could set a precedent that might force future presidents to consider pardoning themselves before leaving office.
During recent oral arguments regarding Trump’s immunity from prosecution in a case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith related to the 2020 election, Gorsuch emphasized that examining a president’s motives should be outside the court’s scope. He cautioned against criminalizing political motives and raised hypothetical scenarios where future presidents could be prosecuted for controversial decisions, like a drone strike authorized by former President Barack Obama that resulted in civilian casualties.
“It didn’t matter what the president’s motives were; that’s something courts shouldn’t get engaged in … I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”
Gorsuch, along with other conservative-leaning justices, focused on the broader question of presidential immunity rather than Trump’s specific case. He noted that the Supreme Court’s decision would have lasting implications, referring to it as a “rule for the ages.”
In a separate Supreme Court case, the court upheld a Texas law requiring online age verification to access pornographic websites. This decision came amid a legal challenge from a trade association representing adult content performers and other opponents of the law, arguing that it violates First Amendment protections. The challengers claimed that the law poses security risks, potentially exposing users’ personal information to identity theft, tracking, and extortion.
The 2023 Texas law mandates that websites with over a third of their content deemed “sexual material harmful to minors” must verify that users are at least 18 years old by requiring them to submit personally identifying information. The challengers argue that this could lead to broader privacy issues and potentially chill constitutionally protected speech.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court rejected a motion to stay the law, allowing its enforcement while the case is considered. Texas justified the law by pointing out that minors can easily access explicit content through smartphones, arguing that the requirement for age verification on pornographic websites is a reasonable measure to protect children.
