No, 1982 Supreme Court ruling didn't give Obama immunity for drone strike | Fact check

The claim: 1982 Supreme Court ruling gave Obama 'presidential immunity' for drone strike that killed US teen in Yemen

A July 2 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) claims to explain why a former president wasn't criminally prosecuted for a drone strike that killed a U.S. citizen overseas.

"Obama wasn't prosecuted for drone-striking 16-yo American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011," reads text in the image, which is a screenshot of a post on X, formerly Twitter. "Why? Because Obama had presidential immunity. It's not new. SCOTUS ruled on it 40 years ago. But if democrats wanna pretend it IS new, then the justice department needs to begin retroactively prosecuting Barack Obama for murder. That simple."

The post's caption reads, "Obama escaped prosecution due to presidential immunity for drone strikes."

The post was liked more than 5,000 times in a week. The X post was reposted more than 1,000 times in that same period.

More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page

Our rating: False

While the Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that presidents have immunity from civil liability, its decision doesn't apply to criminal prosecution. It wasn't until the court's more recent decision in a case involving former President Donald Trump that it addressed whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution, according to legal experts.

SCOTUS decision in 1982 found presidents immune from civil liability

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old Denver native, was killed Oct. 14, 2011, in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. He was not the intended target, according to court documents from a lawsuit filed years later. But his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who worked as a propagandist for al-Qaida, had been the target of a drone strike about two weeks earlier. Obama announced the elder al-Awlaki's death during a ceremony for his outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman.

Obama was not prosecuted for the teen's death, but the Instagram post's claim that a decades-old Supreme Court decision is the reason for that is wrong. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from liability for civil damages for all acts within the "outer perimeter" of the office's duties. But that decision only applies to civil cases – the court's opinion specifically says it "carries no protection from criminal prosecution."

The court's much more recent July 1 decision giving former presidents some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is the "first time in history" it has ruled on that issue, said Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University and author of a book about presidential abuses of power.

While the court's older decision made presidents immune to civil liability, Brettschneider said its newer decision "extends that to criminal cases for the first time."

"That's what's novel about it," he said.

Fact check: No, Biden didn't order arrest of Supreme Court justices

While it's not a law, there is also a long-standing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president with a federal crime. An opinion from the department's office of legal counsel says such a step would "unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch." The policy was cited by former special counsel Robert Mueller near the end of his investigation of former President Donald Trump, when he said charging Trump was "not an option," as USA TODAY previously reported.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of some family members of those killed in the drone strikes argued they "violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law." It named several Obama administration officials as defendants, but not Obama himself. A federal judge eventually dismissed the case, ruling the officials couldn't be held "personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war," the Associated Press reported.

A document released in response to a different lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union lays out presidential policy on drone strikes, often referred to as a "playbook." It indicates Obama had to personally approve the killing of a U.S. citizen targeted for a drone strike outside of a combat area, Politico reported.

In 2001, shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, federal lawmakers authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks … to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." A similar measure was passed ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Since then, multiple presidents, including Obama, Trump and Biden, have cited the authorizations as legal justification for drone strikes. Obama's strike against Anwar al-Awlaki was in part justified because his relationship with al-Qaida brought him "within the scope" of the authorization, according to a government memo released in 2014, The Washington Post reported.

USA TODAY reached out to the social media user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Our fact-check sources:

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaperhere.

USA TODAY is a verified signatory of theInternational Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment tononpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant fromMeta.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SCOTUS ruled presidents immune in civil cases in 1982 | Fact check