Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Conservatives will rue the day they compromised the rule of law

John Roberts at the State of the Union

In Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts produced an astonishing and convoluted treatise that denigrates a key principle of our jurisprudence championed by the founders, writes Toscano.

Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images

Toscano is an attorney and a former Democratic leader in the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of “ Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives.”

Defenders of democracy had hoped the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States would begin with the words “No man is above the law.” But Chief Justice John Roberts avoided the phrase entirely in his 43-page opinion. Instead, he produced an astonishing and convoluted treatise that denigrates a key principle of our jurisprudence championed by the founders and celebrated by the vast majority of Americans for 250 years.

In MAGA world, champagne corks were popping, as the court provided former President Donald Trump one more way to avoid legal accountability. But this decision is more than just about Trump; it arguably has done more to concentrate power in the presidency than any single act in history.


And it opens the future possibility — even if we get past Trump — that any demagogue could win power in a national election and cement it in a dictatorial fashion for decades. In their glee, conservatives are not thinking about the long-term implications of the decision and the threats to liberty that are raised by it.

The broadest immunity

One could understand some limited immunity granted to a president. But the Supreme Court went much further, opening the door to actions that few Americans would find acceptable and would never be justified by the founders. Roberts accuses the three dissenters — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson—of striking “ a tone of chilling doom,” but his opinion is really the cause for alarm. With this decision, a president now has complete immunity for any action under the powers granted by the Constitution itself. Those actions are “conclusive and preclusive” and thus cannot be prosecuted.

This includes Article II powers whereby the president “shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.” As Commander in Chief, could Trump, Joe Biden or some future president order the military to assassinate a political opponent? What about an entire group of people with whom the president disagrees? Could the military be ordered to fire upon people trying to cross the border? How about ransacking the headquarters of a political party for “allegedly plotting a takeover of the government”? Or seizing the files of prominent journalists in the name of national security? Or widescale surveillance of telephone and internet accounts to preserve domestic order? These threats to life and liberty cannot simply be swept under the rug, no matter the president. This list goes on and on. And little can be done about it.

The majority opinion also creates an entirely new standard that grants the “ presumption of immunity ” for “an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” That makes accountability even more problematic. Presumptions are not easy to rebut, and it is not clear who makes that decision. Would it be a prosecutor, a judge or a jury? And since the opinion states a court cannot inquire into the motives behind the act itself, the proof necessary to rebut may be an unattainable bar to overcome.

There are suggestions in the opinion that discussions between the president and other executive officers (e.g. Trump asking the vice president not to certify the electors or discussions with his attorney general about overturning the election) might be immune as well. The majority opinion is especially chilling because it implies that former President Richard Nixon might have found a legal way to prevent the Watergate tapes from being disclosed or used in a prosecution.

Justice Amy Coney-Barrett is the only one in the majority who actually is willing to look closely at Trump’s actual acts to see if these new standards of immunity would apply. While she concurs with the majority, she asserts “the President’s constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow,” and argues that since the “President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership … it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.” (Trump unsuccessfully implored Speaker Randy Bowers to call a special session of the Legislature to discuss nonexistent election fraud in the state.)

Further, she agrees with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s argument to the court that it should immediately determine Trump’s immunity claim in the specific case. Finally, she objects to the majority’s position that would bar the use of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a president. One wonders why she voted with the majority.

The hypocrisy of ‘originalism’

The decision forever exposes the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed “originalists” on the court, who constructed their argument to suit their political agenda, without recognizing the legitimate concerns about its impact beyond Trump. As Sotomayor’s dissent makes clear, the founders could have included an immunity clause in the Constitution but chose not to do so.

They were aware that such protections were granted to some governors in their original state constitutions. But no such immunity claim was included in our founding document, perhaps out of concern for the return of a monarchy. The founders were worried about executive power and created our checks and balances within the separation of powers to guard against it. Today, executive power is more concentrated than ever, and the Supreme Court has now blown away a key way to hold it accountable. Jefferson, Madison and even Hamilton are undoubtedly turning over in their graves.

Is there any silver lining?

Legally, this decision is a disaster. But politically, it may have some value. First, Jack Smith may push for an evidentiary hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court to determine whether Trump’s actions around Jan. 6 and its aftermath fall outside the presumptive immunity granted by the court. It would not be a trial, but could allow the public to review his actions to overturn the 2020 election. Those hearings could continue into the fall.

But more importantly, like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the decision might galvanize those who worry about another Trump presidency. The ex-president cannot really be defeated by court actions; our best chance has always been at the ballot box.

Franklin once referred to the product of our constitutional convention as “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The November election may be one of the last chances to do so.

Read More

Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A vehicle belonging to Vance Boelter is towed from the alley behind his home on June 14, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boelter is a suspect in the shooting of two Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A massive search is underway for Vance Boelter, accused of fatally shooting Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and injuring State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in what authorities are calling “politically motivated” shootings.

The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of Boelter, whom authorities say was impersonating a police officer at the time of the shooting. Investigators also say the suspect had a vehicle with emergency lights and sirens.Inside the vehicle, they found a manifesto with lawmakers' names on it, as well as papers with No Kings written on them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

The Department of Justice logo is displayed.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

For a long time, scholars, commentators, and officials have debated the efficacy of shame as a form of punishment. Opinion has been divided over the efficacy and appropriateness of using it as a response to a criminal conviction.

But nowhere did anyone ever suggest that shaming someone would be an acceptable reason to prosecute them. Until now.

Keep ReadingShow less
After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

A small Lady Justice statue.

Getty Images, MarianVejcik

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), a special interest lobbying group, stands in the way of justice in Louisiana. On May 21, the LDAA successfully blocked a legislative pathway for hundreds of people to receive fair constitutional trials. Louisiana is the only state in the United States of America where people are serving sentences in prison, some for life, where a jury did not agree on whether they were guilty.

For nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana prisons, a jury could have found them guilty but instead returned a verdict that would be called a “hung jury” if the case had been tried in Alabama, Texas, New York, California, Mississippi, and other states.

Keep ReadingShow less