SO AS STEVE AND CHARLES HAVE NOTED BELOW, THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED FOR TRUMP IN THE IMMUNITY CASE. Naturally, the question on everyone’s lips is “what does Glenn think?”

Well. I am in general against all of these immunities: Qualified civil immunity for most government officials, absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors — both doctrines created by judges who benefit from absolute immunity and most of whom are probably former prosecutors. I’ve always opposed both.

If there are to be legal immunities, there’s not much basis in the Constitution. You can make a good policy argument for them — and the unprecedentedly slimy, collusive, and over-the-top lawfare campaign against Trump certainly makes the argument for presidential immunity — but really these are policy choices that should be made by Congress, not by judges. But I’m not expecting that to happen anytime soon, and now that the Court has constitutionalized the issue legislation becomes harder. But while this is a suboptimal solution, we have a very, very suboptimal politico-legal system these days, so so be it.

Full opinion, which I have not read yet beyond the syllabus, is here.