Simple Politics with Kim Wehle

Simple Politics with Kim Wehle

Share this post

Simple Politics with Kim Wehle
Simple Politics with Kim Wehle
Are special counsels on their way to extinction?
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More

Are special counsels on their way to extinction?

Combined with Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago case, the Supreme Court's immunity decision may have rendered independent prosecutors obsolete

Kim Wehle's avatar
Kim Wehle
Aug 12, 2024
∙ Paid
8

Share this post

Simple Politics with Kim Wehle
Simple Politics with Kim Wehle
Are special counsels on their way to extinction?
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More
1
1
Share
brown wooden stand with black background
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Although U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to completely throw out the Mar-a-Lago case did not come as a shock, it has dramatic implications—particularly when coupled with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

While numerous commentators have argued that an appeal is vital because the decision “casts a cloud” on the legitimacy of the underlying law authorizing the appointment of a special counsel, their arguments miss the forest for the trees.

As I told Scott Detrow on NPR, my view is that given the immunity decision, special counsels might be irrelevant regardless of whether they are constitutional.

Link to NPR episode

The whole point of special counsels (previously referred to as independent counsels and then special prosecutors) is to insulate prosecutors from the president's political influence. We want prosecutors with independence to protect the subject of an investigation and prosecution from political persecution, and to ensure that the president isn’t using—or hampering—DOJ to his own personal advantage.

Now that presidents are able to commit crimes through official power, the notion of prosecutorial independence seems almost quaint.

Of course, whether the immunity decision will lead to an uptick of crimes in the Oval Office remains to be seen. The Court essentially left it up to the judgment and integrity of presidents. The Framers of the Constitution understood that “trusting” politicians to do the right thing isn’t enough, however. That wasn’t enough for the Supreme Court to leave an essential check in place—criminal liability if presidents cross red lines.

So for special counsels, honest presidents might still use them. Dishonest ones will scoff at the notion that there are any boundaries between the power of DOJ and their personal aims. The Supreme Court said there aren’t any, after all.


Upgrade to paid

This Substack is all about civic education, and keeping it going depends 100% on reader support. Please consider upgrading to paid if you are interested in helping with this important effort—and thank you!


Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Simple Politics with Kim Wehle to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Kim Wehle
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More