The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton ( talk) 19:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Presidential immunity in the United States

• ... that no law establishes whether you can prosecute a sitting U.S. president? Source: "'Law and' the OLC's Article II Immunity Memos (Stanford Law & Policy Review), pp. 6–8
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corrinne Tarver
  • Comment: This is a split from Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant after a rescope and rewrite. It met newness criteria at the time of the original nomination (under its pre-rescoping title), so my understanding is that it still counts as new. Due to the extent of rescoping, I have contributed a new QPQ.

Created by Tamzin ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Presidential immunity in the United States; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Good to go.-- Laun chba ller 15:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Tamzin and Launchballer: The hook is not stated in the article - at least not in a way that makes it easy to find: I am hoping that you can put it in there with a citation so that I can promote and others can verify. WP:DYK#3. Maybe repeat this line from the intro in the body and cite No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity, nor does there exist any scholarly consensus.. It is possible that I am just not seeing it if it is there. Bruxton ( talk) 18:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Bruxton: The relevant line in the article is Neither memo has force of law, but are binding within the Department of Justice. Because they were not promulgated with room for public comment, they do not qualify as administrative law either; rather, they are an internal prosecutorial policy, sourced to the same as above. Is a more on-point line than that needed? -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 18:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Tamzin: I wonder if you can put the hook language in the article with a citation. It will be easier than deciphering the legal jargon. Bruxton ( talk) 18:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Tamzin: Thank you - I will promote this now. Bruxton ( talk) 19:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)