WHEREAS: 

In Trump v. United States, a 6-to-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly declared that all official acts of a president are entitled to either absolute or presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution. A majority further held that a president’s official acts cannot be cited as evidence in prosecuting crimes committed by a president; and 

WHEREAS: 

The immense reach and vagueness of the court’s decision ensures that any attempts to hold the former president or any other president accountable, even for plainly criminal acts, will be blocked or, at best, mired in lower-court rulings and appeals for years to come; and 

WHEREAS: 

The court’s radical ruling notably did not rely on an originalist interpretation of the nation’s founding documents or traditions. The immunity that the court granted in this case appears nowhere in the Constitution, contradicts the views on presidential power articulated in the Federalist Papers and upends the unanimous Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Nixon that held that the president was not immune from judicial process; and 

WHEREAS: 

The dissenting opinion in this case warns that the decision puts the president above the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that under the majority’s ruling, “a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless;” and 

WHEREAS: 

The fact that the opinion comes in a case alleging election interference — a violent conspiracy to block Congress’s certification of electoral college votes for president on Jan. 6, 2021 — makes the court’s broad grant of immunity especially outrageous. For example, the court has deemed the former president absolutely immune from prosecution for pressuring Justice Department officials to conduct bogus investigations into false claims of election irregularities in order to convince states to replace legitimate electors with fraudulent ones; and 

WHEREAS: 

This new law of the land upends the principle that presidents are no less accountable for their criminal acts than any other person. Fifty years ago, President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, articulating the settled view that the former president could be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. Three years ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified his decision not to impeach Trump on the basis that “former presidents are not immune from being held accountable” by criminal prosecution or civil litigation; and 

WHEREAS: 

This ruling opens the door wider to abuse of power by the president, and not just the former president who brought the case and not just in this instance. This is especially dangerous in a time when presidential action has become unconstrained by historic or political norms; and 

WHEREAS: 

Special treatment for a powerful few is inconsistent with a nation and a society where all people are treated fairly and equitably. 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 

That AFSCME strongly opposes the Supreme Court’s decision to grant new, far-reaching immunity from prosecution to the president of the United States as a perversion of American principles of justice, and affirms the widely held belief that no president should be above the law; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 

That AFSCME recommits ourselves to organizing and building the power of ordinary Americans and working people, both in the workplace and in all the halls of power of our nation, as this is the most effective and enduring way to resist abuses of power by those at the top and defend freedom and fairness for all; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: 

That AFSCME will support and participate in legal challenges of any president’s actions negatively impacting the rights of AFSCME members to hold the president and executive branch accountable for compliance with the Constitution and the laws of our nation. 

SUBMITTED BY:
International Executive Board