The Supreme Court has dealt a blow Jack Smithelection subversion against Donald Trumpwith six conservatives agreeing Monday with the former president that he should enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions” taken as part of his official duties . “Such immunity is necessary to protect the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “and permit the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
Although Roberts wrote that Trump “asserted a much broader immunity than the limited immunity we have recognized,” he and his conservative majority in their stunning 6-3 decision dramatically expanded the scope of executive power—putting presidents, in a way, above the law, as liberal justices do. Sonia Sotomayor wrote in sharp disagreement. “Today’s decision to grant criminal immunity to former Presidents reshapes the institution of the presidency,” Sotomayor wrote. “It makes a mockery of the fundamental principle of our Constitution and our system of Government, which is that no one is above the law.”
“Out of fear for our democracy,” Sotomayor added, “I dissent.”
The Supreme Court has come to Trump’s aid only by taking up the ludicrous case in which his legal team suggested a president could legally assassinate his political opponents. But the court’s slow approach to the case has all but guaranteed that a trial won’t happen before the November election, and the court’s conservatives could derail it entirely now that they’ve argued that a president “is entitled, at the very least, to immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts” and send the matter back to the lower courts.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY,” Trump cheered on his social media page. “PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.”
The former president—who Smith charged with four federal felonies for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss— Joe Biden—has asserted that he has “total immunity” from prosecution, and his legal team has argued to the high court that the president “would be unable to function normally or make decisions.” if you don’t have this right.
It’s an absurd position that essentially says the law doesn’t apply to the most powerful person in the country. But the court agreed to take up the case in February, and members of the 6-3 conservative majority appeared to give credence to the Trump team’s outrageous claims during oral arguments in April.
Like right-wing justice Samuel Alito asked at the time, “If an incumbent loses a very close, contested election knowing that the real possibility after leaving office is not that the president will be able to retire peacefully, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, wouldn’t that lead us into a vicious cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
But what Alito and company did in Monday’s ruling, legal experts warn, maybe destabilize democracy.
“Our democracy has been severely damaged,” the former Attorney General wrote. Eric Owner about X. “Trump’s immunity decision says: a president MAY VIOLATE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined ‘constitutional authority.’ Ridiculous and dangerous. There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court to be so monstrously constructed.”
Berkeley law professor Orin Kerr wrote, “I don’t know if Trump will be reelected in 2024. But I know that, if he did, he would preface every blatantly illegal thing he did by saying, ‘Official action, this is official action. ‘”
“Thanks to today’s Supreme Court, future presidents will have more unaccountable power than at any time in American history,” the presidential historian wrote. Michael BeschlossThe founders wanted a President, not a King, he added.
In recent months, Alito and Clarence Thomas each faced intense pressure to recuse themselves from the case: In the months leading up to the case, it was reported that the former judge had previously hung a flag outside his home to show support for the pro-Trump insurrection on January 6. Meanwhile, his wife, Ginni Thomasattended the rally that followed the attack on the Capitol that day and urged Trump’s allies to overturn his defeat. Alito said his wife, Martha-Ann Alitoresponsible for the flags; both men refused to leave the case; and Roberts refused to intervene, even as the scandals exacerbated the court’s long-running credibility crisis.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy as an independent arbiter of justice will certainly be further affected by the ruling in favor of Trump by conservatives, including three of his appointees. “The seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted,” according to liberals Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent. “The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can…become a law unto himself.”
