One of the most significant Supreme Court decisions was released just a month ago, Trump v. United States, with legal experts worldwide still digesting its long-term implications. From reading the opinions given on partisan lines, this case raises questions that are still unanswered, partly because of the magnitude of the case’s conclusion and partly because of the hypotheticals raised by the dissent. For context, the Supreme Court gave former President Trump “absolute immunity” when exercising core constitutional powers, “presumptive immunity” when exercising “official acts,” and no immunity when exercising private, unofficial acts. Without getting technical, a majority of the charges against Trump were remanded back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where the verdict will be handed down after the election. 

This whole case is a mess. What we can say, though, is that it is painfully hypocritical. Chief Justice John Roberts, in issuing the opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson), argued that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. Grounded in the 14th Amendment, many legal scholars agree that while valiant, Roe was a rushed and poorly written decision. Leaving lots of legal loopholes and constitutional missteps, the majority attacked the opinion but summarized by saying that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, or the Constitution in general, does not directly mention the protection of abortion rights. Similarly, Trump v. United States is hypocritical in this same way. 

Chief Justice John Roberts said it himself: the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention separation of powers, for example, but it is a legal doctrine integral to our democracy. For this reason, he argues, a president’s immunity provides for a separation, thus guaranteed by the Constitution.

If we applied the same logic that was used by the majority in Dobbs, then, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention presidential immunity in the same way the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention abortion. Ruling in this way doesn’t make sense- the court’s job is to apply the Constitution past the limits of the 4000 words. Separation of powers, presidential immunity, and Roe’s decision all exist because the Constitution is expanded past its text. So, if the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about abortion, it shouldn’t exist. If the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about the separation of powers, it shouldn’t exist. So now, If the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about presidential immunity, it shouldn’t exist. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential immunity for “official acts,” but it was nevertheless created by the courts. An obvious and striking hypocrisy arises in this way.

Secondly, it’s precarious. For many reasons, we see legal scholars attacking the majority opinion. Charlie Savage summarized his concern in the New York Times, stating that “rather than a presidency at least theoretically checked by law, the country would be ruled by presidents who could openly commit official crimes with impunity, so long as enough allied lawmakers remained sufficiently loyal to block any impeachment.”

This formidable hypothetical poses a great threat to democracy. We see a huge power grab from the courts: now, on a case-by-case basis, we can see all presidential suits either indiscriminately thrown out (on grounds of immunity) or shifted in the favor of an acting president. The courts could come up with an absurd way to justify an act as “official,” thus deserving absolute immunity. 

Finally, the hyperbole: the exaggeration that comes when raising these hypothetical scenarios. Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion was full of these forebodes, she started her dissent with “[The president] orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.” She then goes on to say “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” painting a grim picture of the future of our country. 

People misread this hyperbolic hypothetical. They subconsciously take it literally, that it could happen in days. What Sotomayor warns us about is that in a unified grab for power, this case sets the groundwork. Trump, working with corrupt Supreme Court justices, working with half of the country that supports his cause, and working with election fraudsters in swing states, could pose a substantial threat to democracy. 

This process is gradual, not immediate. He would work up to a dictatorship, and cases like these are its inauguration. If there were to ever be a coup instigated by Trump, the majority’s opinion might be the legal keys to the castle. 

In this case, it seems that the majority chose Trump over the United States, not just literally. A hypocritical, precarious, and alarming ruling, this case is one of the court’s biggest mistakes. This could evolve into the court’s downfall or an overturned decision, the coming months will paint the picture.