Before this summer, presidents had these constitutional powers: to veto and sign bills, issue pardons, nominate officials like cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices, and represent the United States abroad. But on July 1, the Supreme Court decided that presidents should have a dangerous amount of immunity.
In response to Donald Trump’s election interference case, the court set a precedent. If a president’s behavior is tied to their “official status” and responsibility, not to their private life, they can avoid criminal prosecution.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor described this decision as making a president a “king above the law.” What does this mean when a president could hypothetically assassinate political rivals, take and offer bribes, and organize military coups at home like the U.S. has regularly done in other countries? Even former White House counsel John Dean said Richard Nixon “would have survived” Watergate with the protection this ruling offers.
SCOTUS itself already holds a concerning amount of power, with three of the six judges for the ruling being Trump appointees. This concentration of power has already overturned Roe v. Wade, targeted our rights to protest, and weaponized supposed legal protections for Black communities against us.
This ruling to legitimize potential dictatorship has come at a time of steadily increasing fascism. But instead of fighting within the system to install new justices or new presidents, we should question any institutions that grant more power to a select few at the expense of everyone else.