Lillian Olszewski

On July 1, 2024, former president Donald Trump was granted partial immunity from his criminal charges by the US Supreme Court.

On July 1, 2024, former U.S. President Donald Trump was granted presidential immunity from prosecution for allegedly spreading false rumors of election fraud in order to reverse the results of the 2020 election. In a 6-3 decision, the majority conservative court supported immunity for Trump’s “official acts” as a necessity for the safety of the federal government.
This decision ignored the potential extreme repercussions of expanding presidential power. “Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics, ” Justice Ketanji Jackson said in her dissenting statement. “Or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new presidential accountability model.”
Jackson makes a great point in her dissenting opinion, highlighting the fact that, if an attempted coup falls in presidential immunity, virtually anything can go.
Concurring judges, nevertheless, defend their decision, arguing that presidential immunity needs to be protected for the security of the government and continued balance of powers. “Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former president for his official acts,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course.”
However, this fails to explain how the decision actually changes the balance of powers. Instead of continuing the balance between the three branches of the federal government, the decision simply dumps new power into the hands of the president.
The result of this is an extreme embarrassment to American democracy, which was founded on the very fact of the tyranny caused by the extreme power of one man.
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
It appears that the extreme bi-partisianism that has encircled American government and society is also making America blind to its founding values. Rather than carefully making decisions to protect the democracy, all Republican-nominated justices voted in favor of the decision that protects the 2024 Republican nominee and all Democrat-nominated justices voted against it.
Presidential immunity has been a concern of the court for decades. In the case Nixon V. Fitgerald, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the President is granted immunity from civil liability on official presidential acts. Yet, the court assured that the President is not fully immune from prosecution of acts while in office, only actions that fall under constitutional power given to them.
The outcome of Trump V. U.S. essentially reverses this decision, breaking the precedent that immunity would only apply to civil suits rather than actual felony cases. “A really extraordinary decision that reverses what has been viewed as obvious and commonsensical by courts and lawyers for five decades,” described professor of law David Sklansky in an episode of the Stanford Legal podcast.
While immunity now largely protects Trump from any prosecution stemming from the January 6th capitol attack, Trump still faces 3 other criminal trials. Although, many believe that Trump’s legal team will draw out his cases in order to allow a self-pardon, given that he wins the election.
This may not be possible though, as stated by James Madison in Federalist No.10, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment.” Further, with this limitation, presidential pardons are not viable on state criminal offenses. This means that Trump would still face his hush money case in New York and his election interference case in Georgia.
Along with this, Trump has already shown opposition to self pardoning. “I said, ‘The last thing I’d ever do is give myself a pardon,’” said the former president in an interview with NBC News.
However, Trump has already tried to take advantage of the Supreme Court ruling by attempting to get his New York case transferred to federal court where he could use his presidential immunity. This was rejected by federal Manhattan Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who explained that Trump’s hush money was “outside the bounds of executive authority.” Along with this, Trump’s attorneys have already argued for a delay of his Georgia case until the end of his term if he wins the election.
Overall, as a result of this case, debates between political parties have only intensified, with Democrats painting Trump as a potential dictator if he is re-elected, and Republicans claiming that liberal forces are attempting to repress them. However, what these sides fail to understand is the future repercussions of the continued political battle that is going on. If America ignores its founding principles in order to pass laws that might prove a point for a political party, then the thousands that shed their blood to create this democracy will have died in vain.