united-states constitutional-law blackmail
Can POTUS threaten SCOTUS justices with forced retirement to achieve favorable opinion on constitutionality of his policies?
<p>Rephrased the original question because, as the commenters pointed out, the term &quot;blackmail&quot; doesn't apply here at all.</p>
<p>About a week ago Biden made two seemingly unrelated statements:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>&quot;No amendment is absolute&quot;, regarding his anti-gun efforts that are bound for the Supreme Court eventually.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Announcing a commission to investigate the possibility of the Supreme Court expansion and term limits on the justices.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, suppose that I enter a convenience store owned by my brother, see an open register with $100 and $10 bills, and tell the cashier &quot;So much cash in the register! I know it's your job to guard it, but your vision is not absolute.&quot; Then, after a brief pause, I add &quot;My brother and I are going to be discussing the staffing changes around here. We need fresh blood, so we are going to hire more people, but also let go a few. But we have not decided that yet, just talkings things over, it may go either way.&quot; Then I pause again, look over the open register, lick my lips, and add &quot;Nobody legitimately needs $100 bills. $10 is a perfectly sufficient denomination for anybody.&quot;</p>
<p>Two questions now: would the above conversation in a convenience store be regarded as an attempted extortion, and, if so, wouldn't Biden's pressure on SCOTUS be too?</p>

<p>The president is not permitted to blackmail the Supreme Court, but what you've described isn't blackmail.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/873" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blackmail</a> is a threat to expose someone's crimes. You're probably thinking of something more like extortion, which is outlawed under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 U.S. Code § 875</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are three problems with your theory I see right away:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>With the facts:</strong> As you noted, the President's statements were &quot;seemingly unrelated,&quot; which is essentially an admission that there's no indication one has anything to do with the other. Under those circumstances, you can't establish that he's making any kind of threat.</li>
<li><strong>With the statute:</strong> &quot;Extortion&quot; is generally understood to refer not merely to a threat to do something unpleasant. Instead, extortion is inducing another person to turn over property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear. There's no property at play here, and it's not unlawful to study changes to the court (nor would it be unlawful to actually make changes to the Court, which the president doesn't even have power to do anyway).</li>
<li><strong>With the First Amendment:</strong> The President has a First Amendment right to advocate for changes to gun laws, and for changes to the composition of the Supreme Court. That right does not evaporate when it is informed by the court's conduct.</li>
</ul>
<p>So the Biden situation is not really a good fit with the hypothetical you've described, which presents a much stronger factual basis from which to find a threat. Because it also appears you're using wrongfully inducing fear of economic injury to obtain another person's property, and because you have no right to do so, you would be liable for extortion, while the President would not.</p>
<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> Although the top-line questions has been reframed, I'll just note that the answer remains basically the same. Bearing in mind that the president has no power to force any Supreme Court justice into retirement, one might rephrase the question this way: &quot;If the Court rules that a constitutional amendment has Meaning X, can the president threaten to support a constitutional amendment?&quot; The answer should be obvious: The president is free to support policies to change the constitution, at any time, for any reason.</p>
