Immunity Ratione Materiae in Action: Analysing a Former US President Trial Before the US Supreme Court and the Nature of Official Acts with Regard to the Arrest Warrant Case
Immunity Ratione Materiae in Action: Analysing a Former US President Trial Before the US Supreme Court and the Nature of Official Acts with Regard to the Arrest Warrant Case

Summary/Abstract: The United States (US) Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts by a 6-3 majority in favour of granting absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to former President Donald Trump from his conclusive and preclusive authority. The issue before the Court was whether a former president enjoys immunity for conduct involving official acts committed during his term in office and, if so, to what extent. While a minority of the Justices dissented on the fact that a former President enjoys no such immunity, the majority concurred that he enjoys immunity for official acts. The article examines the decision of the US Supreme Court regarding immunity ratione materiae and whether the decision is consistent with the rules of customary law granting such immunity. Since the issue of the President's official acts is still a significant concern, this article attempts to draw the line between official and unofficial acts. In other words, this article examines the following questions: (i)To what extent does the United States Supreme Court's decision grant criminal immunity to a former President for official acts committed while in office?; (ii) Is the Supreme Court's interpretation of presidential immunity consistent with the principles of customary international law, particularly immunity ratione materiae? And (iii) How can the distinction between official and unofficial acts of a President be legally and practically delineated? It argues that the nature of this immunity for a former president requires that such actions should be official and private, provided they are perpetrated while in office. It further argues that an act may not be unofficial merely because it is unconstitutional and violates applicable law. With lessons drawn from the Arrest Warrant decision, it is argued here that the decision of the Supreme Court appears to be consistent on the position of international law rules on immunity. The article further examines the immunity of Donald Trump as the current or incumbent US President by asserting that sitting Presidents enjoy both functional and personal immunity from criminal prosecution recognised by both national and international law before concluding remarks.

• Details
• Contents