The Guardian

Dismay at ‘absolute immunity’ decision

- Joan E Greve

While Republican­s applauded the supreme court’s decision to grant Donald Trump immunity for official acts undertaken as president, Democratic leaders expressed outrage over a ruling that legal experts warn could undermine the foundation­s of US democracy.

The court’s six conservati­ve justices ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official acts but no immunity from unofficial acts.

The distinctio­n could hamper the federal case against Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidenti­al election, and makes it even less likely that the case will go to trial before election day in November.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a “big win for our constituti­on and democracy” – a view echoed by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson.

“Today’s ruling by the court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponised Department of Justice and [prosecutor] Jack Smith,” Johnson said. “As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrat­s, will decide the November 5 election.”

Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House judiciary committee, said: “Hyper-partisan prosecutor­s like Jack Smith cannot weaponise the rule of law to go after the administra­tion’s chief political rival, and we hope that the left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms.”

Democrats, meanwhile, condemned the decision as a disgrace, describing it as an attack on the separation of powers and a black mark on the supreme court’s reputation.

“This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” said Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader.

“This disgracefu­l decision by the Maga supreme court – which is comprised of three justices appointed by Mr Trump himself – enables the former president to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.

“This decision undermines the credibilit­y of the supreme court, and suggests that political influence trumps all in our courts today.”

Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, said the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”, adding: “The framers of the constituti­on envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity.”

Legal experts voiced similar concerns about the ruling’s implicatio­ns, highlighti­ng the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning that the decision could enable a future president to claim immunity for blatantly illegal acts such as ordering the assassinat­ion of a political rival or organising a military coup to stay in power.

“[The supreme court’s] immunity decision will in time rank as among the court’s worst decisions in its many-year history,” said Claire Finkelstei­n, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvan­ia.

“Any US president can now violate the law to remain in power as long as he cloaks it in the trappings of his office.”

Joyce Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama, concluded: “It’s up to American voters. We held Trump accountabl­e at the polls in 2020 [and] must do it again in 2024. Because the supreme court won’t.”

‘This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy’ Chuck Schumer

Senate majority leader

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom