The Supreme Court’s decision to grant sweeping immunity to presidents is flagrantly undemocratic and dangerous
Beyond Trump’s prosecution: Granting immunity gravely imperils executive accountability with broad ramifications for civil liberties.
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court released a shocking 6-3 ruling in Trump v. United States. Special Counsel Jack Smith brought criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, alleging that, by seeking to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election, Trump had conspired to defraud the US government and disenfranchise voters; and corruptly obstructed a congressional proceeding. Trump sought to have the indictment thrown out, arguing that as president he was granted sweeping immunity.
Today, the court ruled:
All presidents have a presumption of immunity for all official acts and absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within a president's “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority;”
Courts are forbidden from probing the intent or purpose of an official action;
Because the president has exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Department of the Justice, a president has immunity for ordering sham investigations with illicit purposes;
A president enjoys no immunity for unofficial acts;
Official acts for which the president enjoys immunity may not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against the president for unofficial acts (note: this part of the decision was 5-4, not 6-3).
Defending Rights & Dissent condemns the Supreme Court’s Trump v. U.S. ruling as flagrantly undemocratic and dangerous. DRAD Policy Director Chip Gibbons had this comment:
Today’s ruling is a shocking affront to our democratic republic and will have broad implications for civil liberties. Our Constitution prescribes a president, not a king. Yet, the Supreme Court has just given the president vast legal immunity from any prosecution. This move has ramifications far beyond Trump’s prosecution for seeking to overturn the 2020 election and should disturb every American regardless of their personal opinions on the merits of that case.
While there will be immense debate about what is an official act and whether an official was part of a “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” or merely on the “outer perimeter” of a president’s authority, it is not difficult to see the very dark road this decision is taking us down.
Presidents have justified such egregious crimes as warrantless surveillance, military detention without trial, and even the extrajudicial execution of US citizens as within the president’s authorities as commander-in-chief. Similar legal arguments have been used by presidents in both parties to justify illegal decisions to use military force, carry out covert actions, or commit acts of war without congressional authorization.
Defending Rights & Dissent has long fought for executive accountability, including criminal prosecutions, for violations of constitutional and human rights. No such prosecution has ever manifested, but the problem was a lack of political will, not a legal prohibition.
This decision is made all the more distressing by the Supreme Court’s affirmative ruling that absolute immunity can be applied to a President’s decision to appropriate the Justice Department for impermissible, illegal sham investigations designed to reverse the democratic will of the American people. It is shocking to think that a president should face no criminal consequences for turning the machinery of the state against the American people or American democracy itself.