Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Could Put Donald Trump ‘Above the Law’
The Supreme Court has dealt a heavy blow to Jack Smithelection sabotage lawsuit Donald Trumpwith six conservatives agreeing on 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,” the chief justice said. John Roberts wrote in majority opinion“and allow 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 shocking 6-3 decision dramatically expanded the scope of executive power — putting presidents, in some ways, above the law, as liberal justices do. Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a scathing dissent. “Today’s decision granting immunity to former presidents reshapes the institution of the presidency,” Sotomayor wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, a cornerstone of our Constitution and our system of government, that no one is above the law.”
“Out of concern for our democracy,” Sotomayor added, “I disagree.”
The high court did Trump a favor by ruling on the absurd case his legal team had filed. propose A president can legally assassinate his political opponents. But the court’s slow approach to the case has ensured that a trial won’t happen before the November election, and the court’s conservatives could derail it entirely now with their decision that a president is “at least entitled to immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” and send the matter back to the lower courts.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY,” Trump acclaim 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 before the Supreme Court that the president “would not be able to function normally or make decisions” without this authority.
It is an absurd position, essentially arguing that the law does not apply to the most powerful person in the country. But the court agreed to bring the case to trial in February, and members of the 6-3 conservative majority appear give confidence with the Trump team’s absurd claims during the April debates.
As right wing justice Samuel Alito asked at the time, “If an incumbent loses a very close and fiercely 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, doesn’t that lead us into a 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,” Written Former Attorney General Eric Owner on X. “Trump’s immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within the scope of his broadly defined ‘constitutional powers.’ Absurd and dangerous. There is no constitutional basis for this Court-constructed monstrosity.”
Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr Written“I don’t know if Trump will be re-elected in 2024. But I do know that if he is re-elected, he will preface every blatant illegal action that he takes by saying, ‘This is official, this is official.’”
“Thanks to today’s Supreme Court, future presidents will have more unaccountable power than at any time in American history,” Written presidential historian Michael Beschloss, add“The Founders wanted a President, not a King.”
In recent months, Alito and Clarence Thomas Each faced intense pressure to recuse himself from the case: In the months leading up to the case, it was reported that the former judge had flown a flag outside his home in support of the pro-Trump riots on January 6. Meanwhile, his wife, Ginni Thomasattended both the protests that followed the attack on the Capitol that day and urged Trump allies to overturn his defeat. Alito said his wife, Martha-Ann Alitoresponsible for the flags; both men refused to leave the case; and Roberts has refused to intervene, even as the scandals have exacerbated the court’s long-standing credibility crisis.
The legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an independent arbiter of justice will surely be further undermined 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 dissenting opinion. “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.”
