When Presidents Become Kings
The summer of 2024 was a turbulent time in Washington, with rapid changes in the electoral race that sent politicians and press alike into a frenzy of polling, campaigning, and reporting. The whole nation seemed laser-focused on the election, and the world grew somehow more unpredictable with every passing day. Between the assassination attempts and the scramble to replace an aging candidate, it was a struggle to follow the events as they unfolded.
Though much of it feels like a distant memory now, certain occurrences from that summer will undoubtedly have lasting effects on our country, altering the shape of our government for centuries to come. Amongst all that happened, one event from early July stands out as particularly momentous: the decision of Trump v. US.
During the summer before the election, the Supreme Court took up the case of President Donald Trump, who had been accused of engaging in fraud during the 2020 election. The allegations against Trump were grave and plentiful. In terms of vote manipulation, they claimed that he had attempted to get election officials to change votes to favor himself using false claims of fraud and that he had arranged for fraudulent electors to vote for him. Further, they asserted that he had tried to get the Justice Department to conduct investigations regarding knowingly false claims of fraud and former Vice President Pence to certify false results in the election. Finally, they contended that on January 6th, he used the chaos of violent insurrection to convince congresspeople to delay certification of the results.
In his defense, Trump chose to argue that, as president, he had absolute immunity for all acts related to official duties.
Presidential immunity is a nebulous concept. The Constitution does not explicitly grant presidents immunity from civil or criminal prosecution; judicial interpretation has instead been the driving force in providing them with this legal shield.
The first major case which addressed immunity was Mississippi v. Johnson in the 1800s, where the Mississippi government sued President Andrew Johnson to prevent his enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts. In that case, the Court said they could not force the president to perform discretionary executive tasks, and therefore did not have the jurisdiction to comply with the suit, introducing the possibility of special treatment for presidents with regards to litigation.
The issue remained mostly untouched until the arrival of President Richard Nixon, who found numerous ways to exceed his constitutional powers. United States v. Nixon was a case driven by Nixon’s refusal to turn over tapes incriminating himself in the Watergate Scandal to the special prosecutor. Nixon argued that executive privilege prevented him from having to produce the tapes, but the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that presidents do not have absolute executive privilege. After the tapes were released, Nixon resigned, and Gerald Ford controversially pardoned him. It was that pardon that prevented Nixon from facing criminal prosecution and made Trump the first convicted felon to be president, fifty years later.
Aside from these cases, two major rulings stand out as crucial to understanding the history of presidential immunity: Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones. The Nixon case dealt with a lawsuit against the former president resulting from his interference in the termination of Fitzgerald’s Air Force employment. The Court looked on immunity positively here, suggesting that presidents had immunity from civil suits regarding their official actions, given the necessity to protect the separation of powers and avoid the incessant public scrutiny that reduced immunity would bring.
Clinton v. Jones, which emerged out of a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton, produced a more restrictive interpretation. In Jones, the Supreme Court clarified their previous outlook by rejecting Clinton’s attempts to silence his accuser under the guise of immunity, essentially saying that a president is not immune from civil litigation arising from actions taken before he entered office. Jones was a unanimous decision, indicating that by the late nineties, the Court was mostly in agreement on the nature of civil immunity for presidents. However, the fate of criminal immunity was ambiguous until Trump’s entry into office.
The historical standards for immunity demonstrate a delicate balance, predicated on separation of powers and checks and balances. The Court has long recognized that the president requires a certain level of immunity to be the energetic executive Hamilton thought our country would require, a single leader who can act quickly in an emergency without being mired in discussion and dissent. At the same time, too much immunity can impede rule of law and make presidents think they can get away with anything — Nixon and Clinton are examples of this. For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has maintained this balance carefully. Now, they’ve let it collapse.
Despite the strong charges of conspiracy and fraud against Trump in his fraud case, the Supreme Court chose to take his side. The majority decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, reasoned that the ideas expressed in Nixon v. Fitzgerald apply similarly to criminal cases; if a president is subject to prosecution for the exercise of their constitutional powers, they may hesitate to act under the weight of immense scrutiny. Furthermore, Roberts says the courts and Congress cannot be given the right to criminalize or rule on issues regarding presidential duties, as this would weaken the separation of powers.
Using this line of reasoning, the Supreme Court established that presidents will have complete immunity from prosecution regarding their unshared constitutional powers, and presumptive immunity for their official actions. In response to the accusations that Trump had attempted to get the Justice Department to engage in sham investigations, Roberts said outright that because the President has exclusive control of the Justice Department, as the head of the executive branch, he has absolute immunity for dealings he may have had with them.
The precedent set by that aspect of the decision, in particular, is remarkable. If presidents have absolute immunity for any illicit activities that can be claimed to be part of their exclusive jurisdiction, there is nothing to stop them from abusing their power. Justice Sotomayor indicated as much in her frightening dissent, where she condemned the majority for their “ahistorical” expansion of immunity and said that she feared for American democracy. She went on to harangue the Court for merely paying “lip service” to the idea that the president is not above the law, saying that in terms of official duties, “the President is now a king.”
Justice Jackson used similar verbiage in her dissent. Expressing worry that the ruling would create “great harm” for Americans, Jackson said that the loose standards created by the majority meant that only individual judicial review of cases would keep “Presidents from becoming Kings.”
President Trump was less fearful of the implications of this case. In a Truth Social post addressing the ruling, he exclaimed, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
Regardless of the President’s personal pride over his victory, it certainly cannot be argued that this ruling was indeed a “big win” for the Constitution. Aside from the general meaninglessness of that phrase, the ruling does nothing but weaken the checks which exist on the executive branch. In fact, the ruling is so broad that, if it had existed in 1974, Nixon would have been exonerated of most of his crimes.
Moreover, the majority seems unwilling to acknowledge that they have expanded immunity in the worst possible immunity case. President Trump was charged with conspiracy. This is not simply a case of firing an Air Force employee. The Court has now outright said that if a president wishes to cast doubt on election results by abusing his authority over the Justice Department, he can do so as he wishes — which is a highly problematic expansion of power, especially when the man accused of these actions is now in office again and has no ability to stay in office once his four years are up.
One has to wonder, what might Trump do with this blank check the Supreme Court has given him? According to Roberts, if an action can be connected to a president’s exclusive authority, that action is entitled to absolute immunity. So, perhaps, if our president were to command the military to forcibly protect his position in office, this would be within his purview as commander-in-chief and would necessitate complete immunity.
To add insult to injury, a more recent case involving Trump yielded a similar unique outcome. Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in January 2025, charges which were related to a hush money payment he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to protect his electoral chances. These fraud charges were enough to warrant jail time and fines, but, shockingly, Trump received what is known as an “unconditional discharge” — effectively, walking away scot-free.
Some of the press sought to point out a positive element of the case. Trump would still be the first convicted felon to be president, they claimed. Yet one has to ask: What does it mean to be a criminal if you face no punishment for the crime? And what message does it send to the world if American presidents can commit crimes unpunished?
I see a very dangerous path forward for America. We now live in a country where the president can violate the law flagrantly, face no punishment, enter office, violate the law again, and once again face no punishment. We have elected a President who is not only above the law, but knows he is above the law. Throughout his various trials, Trump has mocked judges and the system openly, fully aware of the special treatment he’s receiving. He’s launched personal attacks against Justice Merchan, who convicted him in the hush money case, and scorned the trial as “pathetic.” His behavior did not seriously impact the verdict in the case, nor did it guarantee him punishment. Instead, the courts bent to Trump’s will, proving that, in America, the president does not suffer consequences for his actions. And, for fear of resorting to hyperbole — never in the history of civilization has an all-powerful leader been a good thing.
To me, the lack of foresight shown by the Supreme Court is deeply troubling. In arguing that reduced immunity would weaken presidential power, they are ignoring the reality that rule of law is vital to maintaining institutions, and it leads me to wonder what the intentions of the majority were in expanding power to this level. I can only hope that those who hold the venerated power to administer justice realize that they have created a situation where justice no longer exists for American presidents, and that they make efforts to rectify it. Otherwise, as Justice Sotomayor said, we no longer have a President. We have a King.