The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity transforms executive power.

Sara Rubin here, thinking back to the principles the founders of the United States held dear as they built a grand experiment in democratic self-government. I think about these principles because I love celebrating the Fourth of July, a patriotic occasion to reflect on the beginning of this country as an act of self-determination. 

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, which declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. What happens when, 248 years later, government leaders derive their powers from a judicial branch stacked with political allies? It’s a different world than the one envisioned in 1776, and a different world than we celebrated this week—but it is the world we live in. 

Given the high stakes and remarkable nature of the federal election interference case against Donald J. Trump, we at the Weekly decided to mark the holiday this year with a cover story outside of our usual territory. In the sea of legal documents, one brief stood out, filed on behalf of 14 national security professionals in defense of the government’s case. 

The brief makes an effort to show some potential real-life scenarios that may unfold if presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is granted in our armed forces, showing how easily a president with illicit motives could control a chain of command. It’s almost cinematic—but now, given the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant immunity for official acts taken by a president, it is not the stuff of movies, but reality. 

This underlying case as it relates specifically to Trump is not yet decided. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether Trump’s actions at the heart of the federal indictment pertaining to his actions seeking to obstruct the certification of the 2020 vote on Jan. 6 were official or unofficial acts. 

But the case has implications for our country and institutions far more broadly than Trump. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion: “[The] decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

Those are principles—in theory, at least—that we honor and celebrate especially on Independence Day.

Newsletter

Democracy is teetering. Plus, your Sunday Paper.