A 2017 article by Kate Shaw in the Texas Law Review argued that courts should generally not hold presidents legally accountable for statements made in the political arena because such statements typically serve political storytelling, civic interpretation, persuasion, and mobilization rather than the articulation of considered legal positions.
January 01, 2017
high
academic-findings
Scholarly framework addressing the appropriate role of presidential speech in judicial proceedings.
The same 2017 Texas Law Review argument by Kate Shaw noted a caveat that courts may treat presidential public statements as legally relevant if those statements are made in bad faith.
January 01, 2017
high
academic-findings
The caveat limits the general deference afforded to informal presidential speech in judicial settings.