Supreme Court Declares “Presidents are Kings” in Landmark Immunity Ruling

On July 1, 2024, in a shocking 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted sweeping immunity to former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. This ruling represents a seismic shift in the balance of power between branches of government and raises grave concerns about presidential accountability.

The majority opinion, spanning 43 pages, declares absolute immunity for a president’s “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for all other “official acts” while in office. The Court went even further, stating that immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official responsibilities, covering any actions not “manifestly or palpably” personal.

Most alarmingly, the ruling prohibits courts from inquiring into a president’s motives and bars the use of any evidence related to immune official acts – even in prosecutions for allegedly private crimes. This creates an almost impenetrable shield around presidential conduct.

As I dissected the ruling on air, my grave concerns only deepened. The majority devoted a mere two paragraphs – just 19 lines in a 43-page decision – to acknowledging the public’s interest in “fair and effective law enforcement.” The rest reads as a blueprint for unchecked executive power.

The Court’s reasoning hinges on the notion that the threat of future prosecution would make presidents overly cautious in executing their duties. But as I argued, shouldn’t we want presidents to carefully consider the legality and ethics of their actions? The majority seems to value “bold” presidential action over adherence to the rule of law.

This ruling flies in the face of constitutional history. As Justice Sotomayor noted in her blistering dissent, the Founders explicitly rejected the idea of absolute presidential immunity. Alexander Hamilton wrote that former presidents would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” The Constitutional Convention declined to grant the executive any special privileges beyond what was strictly necessary.

Yet today, six justices have unilaterally rewritten that history, inventing an “a-textual, a-historical, and unjustifiable immunity that places the president above the law,” in Sotomayor’s words.

The practical implications are staggering. As Sotomayor outlined, under this ruling a president could theoretically order the assassination of a political rival, organize a military coup, or accept bribes in exchange for pardons – all while remaining immune from prosecution. While these may seem like extreme scenarios, the mere possibility reveals how this decision has fundamentally altered the nature of presidential power.

This ruling doesn’t just impact hypothetical future abuses. It has immediate consequences for ongoing investigations, particularly Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Trump for alleged crimes related to January 6th. The decision severely hampers prosecutors’ ability to introduce evidence of Trump’s official acts, even if intended to prove criminal intent behind private actions.

I predict this will lead to protracted legal battles over what qualifies as an “official act,” likely requiring further Supreme Court intervention. The majority opinion offers maddeningly vague guidance on this crucial distinction. This ambiguity seems designed to maximize presidential immunity while leaving lower courts to grapple with the details.

As a lawyer and defender of constitutional principles, I find myself more alarmed than ever about the trajectory of our democracy. This ruling shatters the bedrock American principle that no one – not even the president – is above the law. It moves us perilously close to an imperial presidency, unbound by normal legal constraints.

The dissenting justices shared my deep concern. Justice Jackson wrote that the majority’s decision “leaves in place only the chance that this Court might someday determine that the criminal conduct in question was an unofficial act.” She argued this remote possibility is unlikely to constrain future presidential misconduct.

So where do we go from here? I believe this moment calls for bold action to reassert the fundamental principles of our constitutional system. Congress must immediately begin the process of amending the Constitution to explicitly state that presidents are subject to criminal law, both during and after their terms. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue – it’s about preserving the basic tenets of our democracy.

Additionally, serious consideration must be given to expanding the Supreme Court. While I’ve long been hesitant about “court packing,” this decision represents such a radical departure from established constitutional norms that structural reform may be necessary to restore balance.

Most importantly, we as citizens must remain vigilant and engaged. The strength of our democratic institutions ultimately rests on an informed and active populace willing to hold leaders accountable. This ruling makes that job harder, but all the more essential.

July 1, 2024, will be remembered as a dark day for American democracy. But it need not be the final word. Together, we can work to restore the principle that no one – not even the president – stands above the law. Our republic’s future depends on it.