在一项期待已久的裁决中，美国最高法院发现，前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)在担任总统期间的官方行为享有一定的行政豁免权，这让专家们担心，该决定大幅扩大了总统的权力，打击了制衡。
一位宪法专家警告说，这一裁决改变了不当使用总统权力的后果的可能性，使总统的权力“基本上不受制约”，只有可能被弹劾。
康奈尔大学法学院的宪法教授贾里德·卡特在接受美国广播公司采访时说:“这非常令人不安，是帝国总统权力扩张的一个例子。”。
卡特说:“豁免权如此广泛，以至于基本上排除了对总统进行实际起诉的可能性，我认为索托马约尔法官的异议——指出总统可以做的各种事情，并享有绝对豁免权——证明了这一点。”
大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔发表了强烈的反对意见，称这一裁决重塑了总统职位，使总统成为“凌驾于法律之上的国王”，打击了美国宪法和政府制度的基础，即“任何人都不能凌驾于法律之上”
“美国总统是这个国家，甚至可能是全世界最有权力的人。当他以任何方式使用他的官方权力时，根据大多数人的推理，他现在将免受刑事起诉，”她写道。“命令海军海豹突击队第六分队去暗杀一个政治对手？免疫。组织一场军事政变来掌权？免疫。接受贿赂来换取赦免？免疫。免疫，免疫，免疫。”
在法院的意见中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨写道，总统的动机与评估无关，一项行动涉嫌违反普遍适用的法律这一事实也与评估无关。一位专家称这是决定中最具破坏性的部分。
“动机，我认为对每个人的头脑和正常的刑法来说，是任何刑事指控的灵魂。如果你考虑特朗普被指控做了什么，那真的是他这样做的原因使其成为犯罪与否，或者说我们在[决定]之前会这样想，”前美国司法部长兼副助理司法部长和宪法教授哈里·利特曼告诉美国广播公司新闻。
虽然该决定区分了哪些行为是总统的官方行为，哪些不是，但利特曼认为这是一个灰色区域，该决定重塑了总统的权力。
“尽管它无意改变总统权力的范围，但它声称要做的是改变任何不当使用联邦权力的刑事定罪，”利特曼说。
尼克松需要被赦免吗？专家告诉ABC新闻，根据这项裁决，前总统理查德·尼克松在1972年水门事件后不需要时任总统杰拉尔德·福特的赦免，因为尼克松不会受到刑事指控。
水门丑闻的核心是尼克松政府参与了1972年民主党全国委员会总部的闯入事件，并涉及尼克松试图阻止对闯入事件的调查，最终导致他在国会启动弹劾程序后辞职。
“我们确实认为尼克松的行为是犯罪行为，然后被赦免，但在[决定]之后，还不清楚——他无论如何都会有豁免权，”利特曼说。
“尼克松的行为——告诉美国联邦调查局停止对他本人的调查，这似乎是最明显的自我交易，是你不希望一位总统做的事情——绝对，根据昨天的意见，他不可能被起诉，”利特曼说。"他不需要被赦免。"
法院认为总统的动机无关，这是一个重大转变。
“法院在昨天的意见中明确表示，特朗普与DOJ的对话——尽管它们看起来完全是窃取选举的计划的推进——它们完全超出了法院或检察官的调查范围，因为这涉及到动机，”利特曼说。
卡特警告说，事情已经急剧恶化。
卡特说:“我认为现在比我们在那段时间(尼克松时期)看到的要危险得多，因为特朗普总统违背了规范。”。"他对总统职位的传统不感兴趣。"
未来我们能看到什么？卡特说，这一决定极大地改变了力量平衡——这一决定的后果仍有待观察。
“总统的权力越来越大。然而，这是一个巨大的飞跃，因为它消除了对刑事定罪可能性的检查，只要总统能够提出合理的论据，证明这是某种法庭职责或官方行为。起诉将会非常非常困难，”卡特说。
这个决定可能伤害了民主规范。
“民主取决于法治。从本质上来说，很大一部分原因是没有人可以凌驾于它之上，”卡特说。
“[该裁决]将一个人置于法律之上。所以我认为这与民主是对立的，不会给民主带来任何积极的结果。
卡特称这是“民主机构的恐慌时期”。
卡特说:“从现在开始，我们将依靠无论谁是总统的善意来表现自己。”。
What does presidential immunity ruling mean for presidential power, democratic norms?
In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court found that former President Donald Trump has some executive immunity for official acts committed as president, leaving experts concerned that the decision has drastically expanded presidential powers and dealt a blow to checks and balances.
One constitutional law expert warned that the ruling alters the possibility of consequences over the improper use of presidential powers, leaving the powers of the presidency "largely unchecked" with the exception of possible impeachment.
"It's extremely troubling and is an example of the expanding powers of an imperial presidency," Jared Carter, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School, told ABC News in an interview.
"The immunity is so broad that this essentially swallows the possibility of actual prosecution for a president and I think Justice Sotomayor's dissent -- pointing out the various things that a president could conceivably do, and have absolute immunity -- demonstrate that point," Carter said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a strong dissenting opinion saying the ruling reshapes the presidency and makes the president "a king above the law," dealing a blow to the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and system of government that "no man is above the law."
"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," she wrote. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
In the court opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that a president's motives are not relevant to the assessment nor is the fact that an action would have allegedly violated a generally applicable law. One expert called this the most damaging part of the decision.
"Motive, I think to everyone's mind and the normal criminal law, is the soul of any criminal charge. If you consider what Trump is alleged to have done, it is really the reasons that he did it that make it criminal or not, or so we would have thought before [the decision]," Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general and professor of constitutional law, told ABC News.
While the decision distinguishes between what acts are official acts of the presidency and what are not, Litman argued it is a grey area and the decision reshapes presidential power.
"Even though it doesn't purport to alter the scope of presidential power, what it does purport to do is alter any kind of criminalization of the improper use of federal power," Litman said.
Did Nixon need to be pardoned?Experts told ABC News that under this ruling, former President Richard Nixon would not have needed a pardon from then-President Gerald Ford in the aftermath of the 1972 Watergate scandal because Nixon couldn't have been criminally charged.
The Watergate scandal centered on the Nixon administration's involvement in a 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and involved Nixon's efforts to impede an investigation into the break-in, which eventually led to his resignation from office after Congress initiated impeachment proceedings.
"We do think of Nixon as having acted in criminal ways then having been pardoned, but after [the decision] it's not clear -- he would have had immunity anyway," Litman said.
"Nixon's conduct -- telling the FBI to shut down an investigation of himself, which seems front and center self-dealing and the kind of thing you don't want a president to do -- absolutely, he couldn't have been prosecuted for under yesterday's opinion," Litman said. "He wouldn't have needed to be pardoned."
The court saying a president's motive is not relevant is a significant shift.
"The court makes clear in the opinion yesterday that Trump's conversations with the DOJ -- even though they seem completely the furthering of a scheme to steal the election -- they're totally beyond inquiry from a court or a prosecutor because that goes to motive," Litman said.
Carter warns that things have drastically taken a turn for the worse.
"I think it's far more dangerous now than what we saw in that span of time [under Nixon] because President Trump has bucked the norms," Carter said. "He has no interest in the traditions of the presidency."
What could we see in the future?The decision dramatically shifts the balance of power -- and the consequences of that decision remain to be seen, Carter said.
"The presidency has been getting stronger. This, though, is a giant leap because it eliminates that check of the possibility of criminal conviction as long as a president can make out a rational argument that this was some court duty, or an official act. It's going to be very, very hard to prosecute," Carter said.
The decision may have hurt democratic norms.
"Democracy depends on the rule of law. At its heart, a big part of that is that no person is above it," Carter said.
"[The ruling] places one person largely above the law. So I think it's antithetical to democracy, and, and is not going to lead to any positive outcomes on the democracy front," he added.
Carter called this a "scary time for democratic institutions."
"As of right now, we are going to be relying on the goodwill of whoever is president to behave themselves," Carter said.
