July 2, 2024

Here’s what the Supreme Court immunity ruling means for the presidency.

Take Action

• Do not vote for Donald Trump this fall.

Get Educated

We used to think that no person is above the law. But yesterday, in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have “broad immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts they took while in office. In a 6-3 decision, the conservative justices gave the President unprecedented protection for egregious acts of power while in office. More damning, it all but guarantees immunity for Trump for trying to subvert the election and delays his trial until after the November election – it’s likely the case ultimately won’t be tried. If Trump is re-elected, he’d have the executive power to tell the Justice Department to drop the charges against him. 

“The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, “and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” (PBS).

Here’s a breakdown of the decision and what you need to know.

What type of immunity are we talking about?

Generally, the Court decided that the President has “broad immunity” for official acts and broke it down into three parts:

• “Immunity must be absolute” for official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, which is anything that fits under the job description of the President

• Anything that falls “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility warrants “at least presumed immunity,” which currently includes Trump’s actions before the 2020 presidential election

• The president has no immunity from unofficial acts while in office, which holds them accountable to the law for acting out things as a mere citizen. I think this merely encourages the President to make any nefarious acts official business, though, which is worse.

So what does it mean the President can get away with?

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave us a few examples to help us understand how dangerous this can be. By law, here are a few things the President could do with immunity:

• Order the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival

• Organize a military dissenting coup to hold onto power (which would make the Jan 6th insurrection look like nothing)

• Take a bribe in exchange for a pardon

• Demand the assassination of his rivals

And Roberts outlines specifically some of the alleged behavior that Trump can’t be charged for doing, including:

• Urging Justice Department officials to pressure states to “replace their legitimate electors” with fraudulent members of the Electoral College that would ensure a Trump victory

• Pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to “fraudulently alter the election results”

Plus, as I mentioned before, Trump can tell the Justice Department what they’re allowed to investigate him for and what they aren’t, effectively ending all current pending investigations against him.

Upcoming Workshops

I understand that this affects Trump right now. But in the future, is this a good thing for a President with a better moral compass?

No. This is a decision of checks and balances, specifically, to which extent the judicial system can check the power of the President. These systems should help maintain a balanced and ethical response, regardless of the morals (or, in this case, lack thereof) of who’s occupying the role. It also sets a dangerous precedent that limits the power of other positions. (Imagine working for a boss who can constitutionally plan your murder because you two differ ideologically. Not the best workplace culture, if you ask me).

This decision alone teeters on the brink of dictatorship. But remember Project 2025? One of their recommendations is to restructure our government to give the President even more power. If Trump wins, this would result in a presidency with nearly zero checks and balances, which would completely change our understanding of the role of a President in our government. This decision would grant the President the power to implement all proposed steps to make that happen swiftly.

Trump is excited about this prospect and is already building a list of who he’ll instate on his “dream team” when elected – as he plans to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them (Axios).

What can I do about it?

Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about this Court decision. In fact, you might have voted for it. You cemented this decision by voting for Trump back in 2018, which gave him the power to install three conservative judges who all voted in favor of him. This was part of his administration’s plan, and it was likely all strategized out years ago. 

But you can choose not to vote for Trump this year and hope that when a future president has a chance to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court, this ruling can be reviewed again. The next president will likely have two new Supreme Court nominees, as Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Sam Alito, 74, are expected to retire. If a liberal President wins the office, they could confirm two liberal judges, balancing the scope of perspectives and potentially providing a more nuanced perspective on cases like this.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States grants the President "broad immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office, fundamentally altering the checks and balances system.

2. This decision potentially allows a President to commit severe acts, such as assassinating political rivals or manipulating election results, without facing legal consequences.

3. Although this ruling currently impacts Trump, its future implications are troubling. It sets a precedent that could limit judicial checks on presidential power, risking a slide towards authoritarianism.