The Supreme Court affirms Trump’s monarchical vision of the presidency, placing the Oval Office above the law | Editorial

The United States has thrived for nearly 250 years under the core principle that no one is above the law. But a lopsided U.S. Supreme Court just gave Donald Trump and future presidents a license to cheat, steal, or worse.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court ruled that presidents have “absolute” immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office, but no immunity for unofficial acts.

The long-term impact upends the legal landscape for what presidents can and can’t do in office, effectively giving them cover from acts that previously could be considered crimes.

The immediate impact buys Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee in November, more time from criminal prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election. Trump already delayed the criminal proceedings by claiming “absolute immunity” from acts while he was president.

That legal theory seemed like a long shot designed to stall the trial, which was scheduled to begin on March 4. Two lower courts — guided by the long-standing belief that the United States was a “government of laws, not of men” — rejected the argument. Most legal scholars thought the Supreme Court would do the same.

» READ MORE: To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race | Editorial

But an emboldened conservative high court — which includes three Trump appointees and has been taking a sledgehammer to other precedents — decided to take up the case. In doing so, the court stretched out the scheduling of oral arguments and then waited until the last day of its term to announce its decision.

The ruling, in turn, could weaken the case against Trump and give the former president even more time by sending the matter back to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will have to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which charges in the special counsel’s indictment of Trump constitute official acts.

Trump could then appeal any future decisions, adding further delays. The legal battle will surely drag out well past the November presidential election. If Trump wins, he could then order the U.S. Justice Department to drop the case.

The ruling could even impede the state case against Trump for trying to overturn the results in Georgia. Trump’s lawyers have argued the case should be dismissed on immunity grounds, as well.

The ruling adds to the stakes of the November election as to whether Trump will be held accountable for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection or for a separate criminal indictment for taking classified documents.

During his first term, Trump trampled on the norms of the presidency. Now, with the help of the conservative justices, Trump has essentially rewritten the laws for presidents.

Going forward, the decision in Trump v. United States opens the door for presidents to essentially abuse their power in office — provided they make sure it is an official act. During the oral arguments, the justices discussed some extreme examples of what presidents could do if granted immunity.

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Trump’s lawyer responded: “That could well be an official act.”

Justice Elena Kagan asked if a president would be immune from prosecution if they sold the country’s nuclear secrets to a foreign power. Trump’s lawyer argued, “Likely not immune,” before adding a chilling qualifier. “Now, if it’s structured as an official act, he’d have to be impeached and convicted first.”

Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent that made clear the ruling dramatically expanded the power of all presidents by granting immunity for “official acts,” such as assassinating a political rival or taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon.

» READ MORE: When it comes to the law, Donald Trump believes the rules don’t apply | Editorial

Sotomayor said the court “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president,” adding that the immunity power “now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the nation.”

The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to create a government with checks and balances to ensure presidents were not treated as kings or dictators. The Supreme Court has undermined that concept by carving out special protection for presidents.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said immunity was “required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” But until Trump came along, presidents were able to carry out their duties without protection from committing crimes.

Roberts added that a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Justice Clarence Thomas tried to push the envelope further in a concurring opinion that would essentially halt the federal prosecutions of Trump. Thomas’ opinion questioned if the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was even appropriate: “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.”

None of the other eight justices joined Thomas in his concurring opinion, but that is an issue Judge Aileen Cannon is mulling in Trump’s classified documents case.

It is outrageous that Thomas even participated in the case, given his wife’s direct contract with the Trump White House in the efforts to overturn the election. Most justices with any sense of impartiality would have recused themselves.

The same goes for Justice Samuel Alito, who gave the appearance of siding with Trump’s election fraud claims by flying flags at his homes in Virginia and New Jersey in support of the “Stop the Steal” movement. Alito blamed his wife for putting up the flags, which did little to quell the impartiality concerns.

The Supreme Court has gone off the rails providing cover to Trump, who continues to bend the Constitution to his will. If elected, an unbound Trump will be above the law.

Sotomayor concluded her dissent with a stark warning all voters should heed come November: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”