Why the Supreme Court decision puts America’s justice system at risk
By: Shirley Zhu
One hundred thirty-seven years ago, Lord Acton, an advocate for individual liberty, said,“power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This idea is still in play today, as the recent Supreme Court presidential immunity decision truly reflects how a subjective choice made by a group of powerful people can dismantle America’s democracy and justice system. Some might argue that the ruling constitutes a step towards a fairer America, since it preserves accountability for unofficial acts by the President and acts as a power check on the judicial branch. However, the resolution does not present a clear distinction between official duties in office and unofficial actions, nor does it create and sustain an equal balance of power between the three branches, nor enforce accountability on the President. Thus, it is evident that the verdict will do more harm than good.
On July 1st, the Supreme Court granted former President Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for his actions during his term. He is also entitled to presumptive immunity, meaning the government has to prove that official acts—ones that do not fall under his authority—“would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch” in order to prosecute him. The Supreme Court also stated that the President has no immunity for “unofficial” actions.
The differences between official and unofficial actions are unclear. Although Article II of the Constitution states what the President is responsible for, it is very vague. It expresses that the President is in charge of the military and commanding the Executive Branch. However, nowhere does it say to what extent the President can exercise their powers. Thus, the amount of power the President truly has is entirely up to interpretation. Without a uniform set of laws to follow, it is easy for an already skewed Supreme Court—6 Conservatives to 3 Liberals—to decide favorably upon Presidents from the Republican Party. A skewed group provides no justice.
Tilting powers to a singular branch does not provide justice either. By granting immunity to presidents for “official duties,” the Supreme Court lessens the ability of the judiciary branch to step in when the President overreaches their powers. The original purpose of having three branches was to separate powers and prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. That is compromised when the President has reduced responsibility for their actions. This unbalanced distribution of power calls into question the integrity of the American justice system by going against the Rule of Law, which states that all entities, individual or institutional, are treated equally and held accountable to the same laws. The verdict completely excludes the President from this rule.
The ruling also undermines legal accountability for the President. It shares some similar qualities to Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). In the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case, civilian Ernest Fitzgerald sued former President Nixon for playing a part in his dismissal from the U.S. Air Force after his testimony about cost overruns in the military. However, the holding was that “The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.” Similar to this case, the current resolution made it easy to avoid responsibility for abuses of power. That is because, without legal consequences, presidents may feel free to engage in unethical actions and call it “official duties”, as they are protected from prosecution.
This resolution threatens America’s democracy and justice system since it creates gray areas between official and unofficial actions, unbalances powers between the three branches, and allows Presidents to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Leave a Reply