The US Supreme Court’s Shocking Departure: Shielding Presidents from Accountability
The recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States is deeply disappointing and confusing. The majority opinion, drafted by Chief Justice John Roberts, tries to balance executive independence with accountability by distinguishing between official and unofficial acts. The majority says official acts are absolutely immune, and unofficial acts, if reasonably related to the official scope and duty, get something called presumptive immunity. Neither of these principles are found or implied in the Constitution. This creates a significant inconsistency, allowing potential abuses of power to go unpunished and undermining the Founders’ intent for comprehensive presidential accountability.
The Court’s Departure from Textualism and Originalism
One of the most troubling aspects of the majority opinion is its departure from the Court’s advertised judicial philosophy of textualism and originalism. In the 2022 Dobbs decision, Justice Alito argued that abortion rights were neither explicitly nor implicitly in the Constitution. Yet, in Trump v. United States, the Court seems to have invented a broad concept of presidential immunity that isn’t in the Constitution’s text. Article I, Section 3 explicitly states that impeachment doesn’t preclude subsequent criminal prosecution without…
