In a ruling that gently cradles the Constitution while giving the Executive Branch a reassuring pat on the back, the United States Supreme Court has announced that former presidents may in fact enjoy a charming dollop of criminal immunity, at least when it comes to actions described as “official.” This long-anticipated decision, which arrived fashionably late for the summer news cycle, handed a partial victory to former President Donald Trump who had argued with a straight face that trying to overturn an election should be regarded as part of his presidential duties and not, as lesser mortals might see it, attempted insurrection.
After rejecting Trump’s full-throated plea for blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for things he allegedly did in office which may or may not rhyme with “subverting democracy,” the Court still invited judges across the land to take a long contemplative pause before hauling any presidents past or future into court, lest they disturb the nation’s carefully balanced cocktail of executive power, judicial patience and prosecutorial hesitation.
The 6-3 decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts whose pen, while noticeably less flamboyant than history might prefer in such moments, crafted a ruling that sent lower courts scrambling to decipher what precisely counts as an “official act.” If you’re a federal judge who was hoping for an uncomplicated summer filled with light constitutional reading and iced tea, the opinion generously offers a syllabus of confusion instead. The four justices labeled “liberal” dissented, which in this instance is legalese for “we read the same Constitution and came to a rather different conclusion.”
Trump, whose week was already going quite well thanks to a debate performance that left many questioning if President Joe Biden had wandered onto the wrong stage entirely, reacted quicker than usual with a bravura post on social media in which he called the ruling “a big win for our Constitution” while modestly adding that America itself had triumphed. He also included a few exclamation points just to be sure.
“Today’s decision… effectively makes the president a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, in a piece of prose that could double as the synopsis for a rather bleak Shakespearean reboot.
Back in the lower courts where all the real legwork happens, Trump’s federal election interference trial is now firmly stuck in neutral while Judge Tanya Chutkan returns to her desk and attempts the legal equivalent of assembling IKEA furniture using instructions written exclusively in Morse code. The Supreme Court’s ruling demands that she carefully separate the “official” acts Trump performed while President from the “unofficial” ones, such as calling state election officials and suggesting they “find” just enough votes to swing the race his way, which technically sounds unofficial but may require a full hearing involving interpretive dance and historical context to be sure.
Meanwhile, special counsel Jack Smith, who was expecting to proceed to trial this year, may now have to settle for watching events unfold from the sidelines while quietly mouthing the words “Are you kidding me?” into his morning coffee.
Legal scholars are now furiously revising their textbooks as the country heads into an election season where one candidate is the sitting president and the other is heavily indicted but conditionally immune, though only for parts of his past behavior deemed sufficiently presidential. As usual, America remains a land of legal nuance, artistic interpretation and deeply committed partisans on both sides who are entirely certain that the Constitution is totally on their side.
Nothing says democracy like debating whether a former president can be prosecuted for trying to end it.