There are lots of them, but I'll stick to the main one. The Breyer opinion is, surprise, bad law, but it makes the clear point that it's premised on the federal courts being a co-equal branch of government and that its proceedings can thus impinge on executive functions. A state court might be able to make a similar argument on the basis of federalism, but the Jones v. Clinton case makes it very clear that the decision does not directly apply to state courts. Also, this case against Trump is clearly frivolous, as it's not sexual assault or harassment that's being alleged, but defamation, ie, Trump said something mean about me and it hurt my "reputation." If defamation suits against a sitting president are allowed to be tried in state courts, you're going to get thousands of these suits filed every time Trump, or any other president, sends out a mean tweet. It will make governing impossible.
thank you. two points well taken and right on point.
In reading the clinton v. jones ruling, the court never made a distinction on the type of civil suit. Breyer only indicated that it might be different if the suit would interfere with the President’s ability to perform his duties under the Constitution.
SCOTUS specifically addressed their opinion to federal courts and specifically mentioned that they will not address whether a claim comparable to petitioner’s assertion of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal.
Since almost all defamation cases are in state courts, I’m guessing this will again end up with SCOTUS.
Thanks again...