Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

June 16, 2025
+88
°
F

SUPREME COURT’S IMMUNITY RULING POSES RISK FOR DEMOCRACY

SUPREME COURT’S IMMUNITY RULING POSES RISK FOR DEMOCRACY

By: Patrick Marley

In its immunity decision Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized the long-cherished ideal that no one in America is above the law, not even the president. The court’s dissenters and a chorus of critics said the majority had undercut that notion, elevating the president to a king who can easily avoid prosecution. They warned of future presidents unbound from the rule of law who could freely engage in criminal activity. And they pointed to the prospect of a second term for Donald Trump —the man whose indictment on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election prompted the Supreme Court to weigh in — as a moment when their worst fears could be realized.
“If a future president sitting in the Oval Office were to want to commit crimes, up to and including subverting an election or remaining in power against the will of the American people, this opinion, in my mind, could provide a road map for that,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. Becker, a former voting rights attorney with the Justice Department, said he believed the prosecution of Trump for his past behavior can advance in some form. But holding Trump and other presidents account-able will be far more difficult aft er Monday’s ruling, he said.

Like the court’s dissenters, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Becker cited hypothetical examples of presidents ordering the military to kill their political rivals. “If the secretary of defense does it, and whether it’s successful or not, everyone involved in that crime could be prosecuted save for one person — the person who ordered it,” Becker said. Before Trump, no current or former U.S. president had ever been charged with a crime, though some have come close. Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and later received a pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford. Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean said Monday that had the court’s ruling been in force in the early 1970s, history could have turned out very
differently.

Latest Articles

NEED PAST ISSUES?

Search our archive of past issues Receive our Latest Updates
 
* indicates required