Three US Supreme Court Justices Raise Concerns About Immunity Ruling

The US Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that the president enjoys immunity for official acts, but not for acts in his personal capacity. Six justices voted in favor, while three justices voted against.

The ruling came after a Washington federal court indicted former President Donald Trump in August 2023 on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, leading to the Capitol Hill riot in January 2021. Mr. Trump argued that his actions at that time were immune from prosecution and took the case to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that the ruling does not mean the president is above the law and that immunity only applies to official acts. However, the three dissenting justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, outlined a number of negative possibilities associated with the decision.

According to the three judges, the court’s ruling “made a mockery of the principles that are the foundation of the constitution and the government, that no one is above the law”.

“The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and perhaps the world. According to the judges who voted in favor of the decision, the president is immune from prosecution for using his power in any way,” Justice Sotomayor argued. “Order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent? Immunity. Conduct a coup to stay in power? Immunity. Accept a bribe to grant someone a pardon? Still immunity.”

SEAL Team 6 is the Naval Special Warfare Deployment Group, the top elite special forces in the US military, capable of carrying out many top secret missions.

Ms. Sotomayor said that the message sent by the group of 6 judges was to let the president violate the law, take advantage of his position for personal gain, and use power for evil purposes because he would not face legal consequences.

“In every case of using power, the president is like a king standing above the law,” Justice Sotomayor emphasized.

Judge Jackson raised the scenario of a US president wanting to fire the attorney general and deciding to poison him, causing his death, the president still escapes punishment by arguing that the dismissal of a cabinet member was an act of public service.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the dissenting opinions were completely unrepresentative of what the court was doing.

“Without any basis in fact, opponents repeatedly accuse the court of putting the president ‘above the law.’ Ultimately, their positions ignore the constitutional separation of powers and court precedent, instead stoking fear based on extreme theories about the president’s ability to violate federal criminal law,” Robert stressed.

Robert argues that immunity is intended to ensure that the US president can effectively perform his constitutional functions, without pressure or worry that he will be retaliated against by his opponents after leaving office.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s case was sent back to the federal court in Washington for further review. Roberts argued that the lower court had the task of determining whether former President Trump’s actions in his efforts to sway the 2020 election were official or private, which would delay the start of the trial and benefit Trump.

Mr Trump hailed the ruling as a “great victory for the Constitution and democracy”, while President Joe Biden criticised the ruling as setting a dangerous precedent and meaning there were no limits to what the president could do.

The three dissenting justices were liberals appointed by Democratic presidents. The other six were conservatives appointed by Republican presidents, three of whom were appointed by Trump.