The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, delivered July 1, 2024, has ignited a firestorm of debate over the scope of presidential power and the potential consequences for American democracy. At the heart of the ruling is the Court’s determination that presidents possess “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for official acts undertaken while in office.
To arrive at this conclusion, the justices grappled with a fundamental question: How much power should a president wield? Some legal scholars argue that the Court’s decision draws heavily from the unitary executive theory, which, in its most extreme form, posits that the president has sole and unchecked authority over the entire executive branch.
The ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, distinguishes between “core” constitutional powers, for which presidents have absolute immunity, and other official acts, which are granted presumptive immunity.
The Court held that presidents “may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]” granted under Article II of the Constitution, such as commanding the military, issuing pardons and vetoing legislation. However, this presumptive immunity can be overcome if prosecutors demonstrate that charges would not threaten the power and function of the executive branch.
Critics argue that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially shielding presidents from accountability for criminal acts committed while in office.
They fear it could embolden future executives to push the boundaries of their authority, dismantle federal agencies established by Congress, and disregard due process in areas like immigration. As Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated, the decision is “an assault on American democracy”.
ACLU National Legal Director David Cole warned, “The decision sets a dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when even arguably using their formal powers to do it”.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has already had tangible effects, delaying Trump’s federal election interference case as lower courts review which of his alleged acts are immune from prosecution. It also raised questions whether a president-elect can be prosecuted, since existing Justice Department protocols prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president.
The implications of Trump v. United States are far-reaching, with the potential to reshape the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches for decades to come.
Related topics:
