The underlying sense that November’s US presidential election presents a stark choice between a democratic and autocratic future was reflected in a stunning supreme court decision on Monday that found presidents were immune from prosecution for “official” acts.
In a major legal victory for Donald Trump, the court found he was entitled to at least partial immunity from charges he faces of attempting to subvert the result of the 2020 presidential election.
[ US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts ]
While the court did not grant the absolute immunity sought by the former president, its finding by a six-three majority – on conservative-liberal lines – expanded the notional presidential suite of powers to a degree that astonished some legal scholars. But the most striking response was that of a member of the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who signed off with a blistering critique of the finding of her six conservative colleagues: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
Although the judgment pertains to the office and function of the presidency rather than specific acts and decisions by Mr Trump, a dramatic warning paragraph by Justice Sotomayor seemed to frame her concerns against the backdrop of the closing days of the Trump presidency and the upheaval following his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
[ US supreme court rules Donald Trump entitled to degree of immunity from criminal prosecution ]
“Let the president violate the law. Let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew he might one day face liability for breaking the law he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be: that is the majority’s message today. Orders the Navy Seals Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune. Immune. Immune. That is the majority’s message today.”
The 118-page document is sufficiently complex and open to interpretation to ensure that legal scholars will be busy for months and years. Its immediate impact makes it almost certain that Mr Trump will not face criminal proceedings ahead of the November election. If he is returned to office, he can order the department of justice to drop all federal charges against him. The boost to his campaign comes after a weekend in which Republicans basked in the aftermath of Mr Biden’s calamitous performance in their televised debate last Thursday.
[ Biden v Trump: Who won the debate? Was it any good? Were there any surprises? ]
In a curious way, the court’s ruling has opened an opportunity for the Biden campaign to do what its candidate spectacularly failed to do in that debate – present the forthcoming election as an elemental battle between the values of democracy and despotism. In a statement, the Biden campaign said the supreme court had “just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship”, a theme which the president will doubtlessly attempt to hammer home at his rallies over an already molten summer.
