re: #290 Big Beautiful Door

No, they haven’t. I do know that the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot be indicted for a state criminal offense while he is in office, but of course that has no precedential value in regards to the President.

The Kentucky ruling could serve as persuasive precedent - meaning the Court could use it as a guidepost, should they ever hear a case on the issue, but it is by no means binding. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution says this about impeachment and indictments:

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Now, one way to read that is that impeachment and conviction in the Senate must come first because of the phrase “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable…” That sort of fits with the idea of sovereign immunity as it has traditionally been applied. But then there’s the Clinton precedent in the 90s - sovereign immunity used to stay civil matters against the president until he was out of office, but the Court took that protection away (rightly, I think, given modern legal procedures); there’s a possibility the Court could extend that ruling to criminal matters - especially if they rely on the idea that “in our system of government, no one is above the law.” And quite frankly, the second half of the 20th century saw the Courts roll back sovereign immunity in a lot of areas, so it would fit the trend.

I suspect the Court will also look at cases against federal judges who have been removed from the bench via impeachment following indictments and/or conviction (I believe there are cases like that).