Cheney v. Libby was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2007. The case involved former Vice President Dick Cheney and his former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby had been indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators in connection with the investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The Supreme Court held that Libby was not entitled to a presidential pardon because the pardon power does not extend to cases in which the defendant has not yet been convicted. The Court also held that the district court did not err in denying Libby's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution. The Court's decision was unanimous, with Justice Scalia writing the opinion for the Court. The Court held that the pardon power does not extend to cases in which the defendant has not yet been convicted, and that the district court did not err in denying Libby's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of selective prosecution. The Court also held that the district court did not err in denying Libby's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

In the Supreme Court case of Cheney v. Libby, Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision to grant immunity from prosecution for former White House Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that granting such immunity would set a dangerous precedent by allowing high-ranking government officials to avoid criminal liability even when they have committed serious offenses like perjury or obstruction of justice. Furthermore, he noted that there were other avenues available to protect executive privilege without granting blanket immunity from prosecution, including invoking executive privilege during trial proceedings or seeking judicial review before any charges are filed against an individual official. In conclusion, Justice Stevens believed that the majority's ruling was misguided and could potentially lead to further abuses of power by those in positions of authority within our government system.