Why did the Supreme Court’s immunity for Donald Trump change the rails that guide presidential power in the US?

In the long term, however, it implies an enormous expansion of presidential power in the United States that, misused, could lead to a dictatorship.

That, broadly speaking, was the first interpretation that legal experts gave to the momentous decision.

The conservative majority of the Court determined that Trump enjoys immunity from all acts he may have committed in the exercise of his functions as president.but not those that refer to his actions as a private citizen or as part of a political campaign.

In the words of Jon Roberts, the court’s chief justice and the person who wrote the majority opinion, the president must be able to act and make decisions without fear that later – once he leaves the Oval Office – these will be subject to review and potential punishment by the judicial system.

“A president, inclined to pursue one course of action based on the public interest, may choose another, fearful of criminal sanctions when he leaves office,” Roberts wrote.

From the majority’s perspective, His public orbit would include policy changes, military decisions and discussions he had with other officials in his administration.

A president, inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest, may opt for another, fearful of criminal penalties when he leaves office.

Since many of the charges against Trump relate to actions he took when he was president, these could be covered. Roberts, for example, specifically cited discussions the Republican president had with the Attorney General’s Office to investigate alleged fraud in the presidential election.

Although the US Attorney’s Office operates independently, most senior officials are appointed by the president and to some extent act under his direction.

The judge made it clear, however, that other actions such as asking then-Vice President Mike Pence not to fulfill his constitutional duty to certify Joe Biden’s victory would be outside his functions as president and, therefore, subject to investigation and possible judicial sanction.. He also recalled that Congress remains a control body to evaluate the actions of a president through the impeachment process (or impeachment).

“Presidents,” Roberts stressed, “are not always outside the law.”

The immediate effects of the Court’s decision on Donald Trump’s immunity in the United States

The Court, in its ruling, did not specifically determine where the line is drawn that will determine what is covered and what is not, returning the case to the federal court of Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had already upheld charges against Trump for electoral interference in a decision that was later endorsed by an appeals court composed of three other judges.

What this means is that Chutkan will have to start a new process to review each of the charges against the former president in light of the court’s ruling.

An exercise that will take months and will not be completed before the elections. As is known, since these are federal charges, Trump, if he wins the election, could drop all charges against him.

But even if he loses and Chutkan determines that some of Trump’s actions were outside the law, That decision would be appealed, returning again to the Supreme Court of Justice.

This decision redefines the presidential institution and mocks the principle… that no man is above the law. The president is now a king.

Which, critics say, is one of the central problems. The high court’s decision was split along strict partisan lines (the six conservatives versus three liberals). And, of course, it leaves a bad taste that three of those six judges were appointed by Trump himself and confirmed by the Republican Party that imposed the majority they then had in the Senate.

The court, and this was a detail that drew much attention, waited until the last minute to make the decision, effectively suffocating the possibility that the issue would be resolved for better or worse before the November elections.

But that, according to the three liberal judges who dissented from the ruling and other legal experts, is just the tip of the iceberg.

“This decision redefines the institution of the presidency and makes a mockery of the principle… that no man is above the law. “The president is now a king,” said Sonia Sotomayor, one of the nine members of the high court.

In her dissent, Sotomayor argues that from now on, after the ruling, presidents will be able to do things that were previously clearly illegal.

“Order the SEAL 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Stage a military coup to stay in power? Immune. Accept a bribe in exchange for a presidential pardon? Immune, immune, immune, immune…” Sotomayor wrote.

What analysts say about Donald Trump’s immunity

The Supreme Court’s decision is an extraordinary expansion of executive power whose repercussions will continue to be felt even after Trump disappears from the map.

For Patrick Gaspard, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, This is a decision that is not only dangerous in practical terms but will go down in history as perhaps the worst ever made by the Supreme Court.

“By determining that presidents enjoy broad immunity for actions taken in the exercise of their functions, it elevates them to the rank of emperor. It also makes it nearly impossible to prosecute Trump for his efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election. “and gives future presidents nearly unlimited power to abuse their authority, including the seemingly unfettered ability to weaponize the Justice Department against their political rivals,” Gaspard said.

According to Charlie Savage, newspaper cuts expert The New York TimesThe court’s decision constitutes, at the very least, a massive expansion of presidential powers.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is an extraordinary expansion of executive power whose repercussions will continue to be felt even after Trump is gone. Beyond its immediate implications for this election subversion case or the prospect that Trump might feel less constrained by the law if he returns to power, the ruling normalizes the relentless rise of presidential power that has been underway since the middle of the 20th century,” Savage said.

To cite an example, and according to this analyst, the criminal proceedings initiated against former President Richard Nixon for spying on the headquarters of the Democratic Party (the famous Watergate scandal that forced his resignation) would be illegal today because Nixon’s conversations with his Justice Department and the orders he issued would be covered by the new immunity.

Responding to criticism, Roberts called the litany of crimes that could now be committed – and raised by the opposition – an attempt to “instill fear based on extreme hypotheses.”

The dissenting justices, he said, overlooked the “more likely prospect of a self-cannibalizing executive branch, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors but unable to perform his duties resolutely and fearlessly for fear of being next.”

Never before in American history have presidents had reason to believe they would be immune from prosecution if they used their office to commit crimes.

For Sotomayor, however, it is quite the opposite.

According to the jurist, in order to preserve that capacity for action, the conservatives ignored “the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. Never before in American history have presidents had reason to believe that they would be immune from prosecution if they used their office to commit crimes. But now, and going forward, all former presidents will enjoy that immunity.”

Which, according to Sotomayor, is serious because presidents will operate knowing that if they act for their personal benefit – and commit crimes – in most cases there will be a way to prosecute them under current laws.

The real impact of the Court’s decision will largely depend on the direction the case takes now that it returns to Chutkan’s bench.

But there is no doubt – at least under the current composition of the Supreme Court – that the rails that guided the exercise of presidential power in the United States are now different. For better or worse.

SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI

Correspondent for EL TIEMPO

Washington