Supreme Court’s immunity decision could put Donald Trump “above the law”
The Supreme Court has dealt a heavy blow 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 permit the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
Although Roberts wrote that Trump “asserted an immunity much broader than the limited immunity we have recognized,” he and his conservative majority in the stunning 6-3 decision of they have greatly expanded the scope of executive power — placing presidents, in some ways, above the law. , like liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a scathing dissent. “Today’s decision to grant immunity to former presidents reshapes the institution of the presidency,” Sotomayor wrote. “It makes a mockery of the foundational principle 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 Supreme Court helped Trump only when hearing the ridiculous case in which his legal team was propose a president can legally assassinate his political opponents. But the court’s slow approach to the case has ensured that the trial will not take place before the November election, and the court’s conservatives could derail it entirely now with the decision. Their decision held that a president “is at least entitled to immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” and referred the matter back to the lower courts.
“BIG WIN FOR our Constitution and our democracy,” Trump acclaim on its social networking page. “PROUD TO BE AMERICAN.”
The former president—who Smith has charged with four federal felonies for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat—has been 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 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 credibility with the Trump team’s absurd claims during the April debates.
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 badly 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 authority.’ Absurd and dangerous. There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court’s monstrous construction.”
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, he will preface every blatantly illegal thing he does 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,” Written presidential historian Michael Beschloss, more“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 refused to intervene, even as scandals exacerbated the court’s long-running reputational 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, three of whom were appointed by him. “The seeds of absolute power for the President have been planted.” 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.”
