One of the most momentous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court occurred one year ago, on July 1, 2024. Trump v. United States not only reshaped the presidential race, but raised the specter of unlimited executive power 鈥 a dilemma we squarely face, as a president involves us in a potentially major war without consulting Congress, which holds sole war-making powers under the Constitution.
How we got here is worth recalling, since shockwaves set off by Chief Justice John Roberts鈥 opinion are still echoing around the world.
Trump v. U.S. is the court鈥檚 most radical rewriting of the Constitution since the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which helped bring on the Civil War by ignoring conflicting provisions concerning slavery, finding that Blacks, free or enslaved, 鈥渉ad no rights which the white man was bound to respect.鈥
One year ago, Donald Trump faced the possibility, even the likelihood, of being the first president convicted of federal crimes. The court ensured that never happened.
It started in February 2021, when the Senate failed to convict Trump on charges related to the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol by pro-Trump rioters, seeking to prevent Senate certification of Joe Biden鈥檚 defeat of Trump in 2020 鈥 a defeat Trump continues to deny.
After impeachment by the House, Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, voted for acquittal, claiming the courts would take care of it; following his example, only seven Republican senators, including Maine鈥檚 Susan Collins, voted to convict.
Enter Chief Justice Roberts. Although key cases were heading to trial, the court created delays, then assumed control before any jurors could be seated, let along verdicts reached. How that happened is also worth remembering. It takes four votes to hear a case, and Roberts sided with three Democratic-appointed judges to assume jurisdiction. Without resolution, they concluded, delays would extend beyond the 2024 election.
Then Roberts recruited his five Republican colleagues behind the astonishing proposition that presidents have not only 鈥渁bsolute immunity鈥 within their constitutional authority, but 鈥減resumptive immunity鈥 for 鈥渁ll official acts鈥 -鈥 an interpretation broad enough to encompass Jan. 6 and a lot more besides. The cases were dismissed.
The chief justice gave the lie to the idea that this court is 鈥渙riginalist,鈥 interpreting the Constitution as the Framers would have. The fledgling nation had fought a revolution against the British monarchy, and all officials of the new government were treated the same; no one was above the law.
All, including the president, were subject to political penalties through impeachment and also criminal sanctions, no exceptions. Until Chief Justice Roberts created many.
As if aware of what he was doing, Roberts spent four pages rebutting dissenting arguments by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who found no basis in the Constitution鈥檚 text or history to support the decision. If the then-former president were not protected, Roberts wrote, future presidents might decide to prosecute their predecessors and the executive branch would 鈥渃annibalize itself.鈥
That this had never happened in more than 200 years of orderly successions of power meant nothing; the prospect of one president being held accountable was anathema.
There鈥檚 little doubt how the reelected president has interpreted Trump v. United States. His own grant of immunity has translated into immunity for anything he decides to do, whether assuming unilateral war-making powers or tearing up contracts in defiance of Congress, not to mention deporting anyone who offends him.
The federal trial courts and the courts of appeals have been busy, hearing hundreds of cases attempting to block illegal and probably unconstitutional presidential orders, and finding sufficient merit to put the orders on hold. The Supreme Court has been largely uncooperative, overturning the judges鈥 decisions on emergency basis, without explanation.
The latest example is the court鈥檚 clearance of unlimited deportations for immigrants to countries they鈥檝e never lived in and have no connection to; the trial judge said they were entitled to hearings.
The emergency orders鈥 significance is that federal court proceedings are notoriously slow. The first trial isn鈥檛 until August, when Judge William Young will hear challenges to Trump鈥檚 cancellation of research grants from the National Institutes of Health. 鈥淚 have never seen government racial discrimination like this,鈥 said Young, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Whatever verdicts judges or juries reach will be 鈥 like the Jan. 6 cases 鈥 moot if the Supreme Court continues overruling lower court actions and hearing administration appeals.
By now it鈥檚 crystal clear that federal institutions are failing: Congress, with its Republican majority cowed or simply willing to give Trump free rein, and the Supreme Court by indulging the 鈥渦nitary executive.鈥
The American people are on their own. It鈥檚 up to us to preserve our democratic system by protest before the next election, then voting on Election Day. It may be our last chance.