Did supreme court say president can have political opponents killed?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling expanding presidential immunity has prompted repeated media and legal debate over whether a president could order the killing of a political opponent and be immune from criminal prosecution; dissenting justices and some commentators say the decision “opens the door” to that possibility while many scholars call such a scenario legally and practically unlikely [1] [2]. The Court held presidents have broad immunity for “official acts,” but the majority did not explicitly rule that assassination orders would be protected; dissents and commentators framed that hypothetical as a central worry [1] [3].
1. What the Court actually said: broad immunity for “official acts”
The Supreme Court’s controlling opinion concluded that a president enjoys sweeping immunity for actions taken as part of his “official duties,” creating a strong presumption that certain conduct cannot be the subject of criminal prosecution if it qualifies as an official act [1]. The majority’s language did not expressly list assassination or comparable crimes as immune; instead the decision set a framework that focuses on whether conduct falls within the office’s constitutional functions [1].
2. Where the “can a president kill rivals?” headline comes from
The dramatic framing flows from oral arguments, briefs and dissenting opinions that used an assassination hypothetical—ordering SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent—to test the boundaries of the immunity rule [4] [5]. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and other dissenters explicitly warned that the immunity doctrine the majority embraced could be read to shield such conduct, and commentators reproduced the hypothetical as a shorthand for the decision’s potential reach [5] [1].
3. Legal scholars: technically possible but practically unlikely, per several experts
Constitutional scholars interviewed after the ruling told outlets that while the decision could be interpreted to protect some extreme official acts, entrenched legal checks and military law would likely constrain or block an assassination order in practice; experts said it is “technically true” but “will never happen in practice” [2]. Other scholars argue the Court’s expansion of immunity nevertheless increases the risk of abuses and leaves open troubling hypotheticals even if they are unlikely to materialize [1].
4. Competing institutional constraints that sources cite
Reporting notes multiple institutional brakes on a hypothetical assassination: the Uniform Code of Military Justice and military officers’ duty to refuse unlawful orders, internal chain-of-command norms, and the political and impeachment mechanisms that remain available to Congress [2] [4]. Filings from former military leaders argued a president has no lawful authority to order the military to kill a political rival and that troops would not carry out such an order [4].
5. Dissenting justices and critics: a “license to kill” concern
Dissenters, prominent commentators and some newspapers framed the ruling as creating a dangerous precedent that could be read to immunize extreme abuses, citing the assassination hypothetical to argue the decision risks placing the president beyond criminal accountability for “official” misconduct [5] [6]. Critics warn that even if immediate abuse is unlikely, the doctrinal shift reduces legal deterrents and could embolden corrupt behavior [1].
6. Fact-checkers and cautious reporting: nuance over sensationalism
Fact-checkers and detailed analyses emphasized nuance: they confirm the Court expanded immunity for official acts but rejected claims that the Court literally handed presidents the power to kill with impunity; instead they place the assassination scenario in the realm of a provocative but unsettled legal question explored by dissents and commentators [7]. News outlets flagged the rhetorical power of the hypothetical while underscoring limits in the majority opinion [2] [7].
7. What’s uncertain or not covered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention any actual decision in which the Court directly held that an assassination order would be an “official act” immune from prosecution—no majority opinion squarely resolved that precise question [1]. Nor do current reports show real-world instances where the military would have followed such an order; the debate remains primarily theoretical and doctrinal [4] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
The high court’s immunity ruling materially broadened protections for presidential conduct labeled “official,” and that doctrinal shift sparked credible alarms—articulated by dissenting justices and critics—that it could be read to shield extreme acts like ordering a political killing. At the same time, multiple experts and former military officers cited by the press say legal, military and political constraints make the assassination scenario unlikely in practice; the claim that the Court plainly “said the president can have opponents killed” overstates what the majority actually wrote [1] [2] [4].