Rachel maddow report that supreme court ruled unamiously voted that presidential immunity and executive privilege are accountable
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States was not a unanimous ruling that “presidential immunity and executive privilege are accountable”; instead the Court issued a divided 6–3 opinion that carved out absolute immunity for a former president’s core constitutional powers and a presumption of immunity for many other official acts, while prior unanimous precedents (like United States v. Nixon) continue to limit executive privilege in specific contexts [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Court actually held: a tripartite framework, 6–3, not unanimity
In Trump v. United States the Supreme Court adopted a three-part framework distinguishing (a) “core” presidential functions that get absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, (b) other official acts that carry at least a presumption of immunity, and (c) unofficial acts that are not immune, and the opinion was a 6–3 decision rather than unanimous [6] [1] [2].
2. Executive privilege is a separate doctrine and has been limited by unanimous precedent
Executive privilege — the ability to withhold certain presidential communications — is legally distinct from criminal immunity, and the Supreme Court has previously limited absolute privilege in a unanimous 1974 decision, United States v. Nixon, which rejected an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” [4] [5] [7].
3. How commentators describe the ruling: expanded immunity, contested consequences
Legal and advocacy organizations read the 6–3 ruling as a major expansion of presidential protections: some conservative scholars defended it as restoring executive authority, while groups like the ACLU and the Brennan Center condemned it as placing presidents above the law and weakening accountability, explicitly arguing the Court’s test will make criminal prosecution for official wrongdoing much harder [8] [9] [10] [11].
4. What lower courts had done before the Supreme Court stepped in
Before the Supreme Court’s review, a federal district court and a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit had both rejected the immunity claim in the underlying case, holding that the former president enjoyed no criminal immunity; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve that question and then issued its divided ruling [1] [12].
5. Common misreads and why “unanimous” is wrong in context
Some summaries that cite earlier unanimous cases or conflate the Court’s recognition of longstanding presidential immunities with unanimity of the Trump decision are misleading: the key modern precedents limiting privilege (e.g., Nixon) were unanimous, but the Trump immunity ruling itself was 6–3 and explicitly creates a presumption and categories rather than an across-the-board immunity [4] [3] [1].
6. About Rachel Maddow’s reporting — limits of available sources
There are no items among the provided sources that document or summarize what Rachel Maddow specifically reported on this ruling, so whether Maddow said the Court “unanimously voted that presidential immunity and executive privilege are accountable” cannot be corroborated from these materials; available reporting instead shows the Court’s decision was 6–3 and distinguishes immunity from executive privilege [1] [4] [3] [5].
7. Bottom line for the claim at issue
The factual record in these sources contradicts the asserted phrase “unanimously voted that presidential immunity and executive privilege are accountable”: the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity was 6–3 (not unanimous) and expanded absolute and presumptive immunities for official acts, while prior unanimous cases like United States v. Nixon separately constrained executive privilege in judicial proceedings [1] [2] [4] [5].