The Supreme Court gave presidents immunity. Legal experts say it won’t extend to staffers

The Supreme Court made clear that its bombshell decision granting broad immunity to Donald Trump was intended in part to empower future presidents to make “energetic” and “vigorous” decisions without fear of criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court made clear that its bombshell decision granting broad immunity to Donald Trump was intended in part to empower future presidents to make “energetic” and “vigorous” decisions without fear of criminal prosecution. Advisers working for the president, on the other hand, may want to take a beat. The controversial 6-3 decision, which drew sharp dissents from the court’s liberal justices and barbed criticism from President Joe Biden, provides no added legal protection for the vast apparatus of advisers and senior staff who carry out the president’s directives – from setting up a phone call in the Oval Office to orchestrating a military strike. That dynamic could complicate the relationship between future presidents and staff, creating an imbalance between an executive who is now widely shielded from prosecution and advisers who have virtually no protection for illegal acts at all. It could also create a line of defense against a president pushing the boundaries of legality. “Usually, the president and the staff are aligned in not wanting to commit crimes,” said Neil Eggleston, a veteran attorney who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration. “But if you have a corrupt president and you are staff, you have to think to yourself, ‘Am I going to get dragged into something the president won’t be prosecuted for, but I can be?’”