The United States was founded on the idea of checks and balances and no one branch of government becoming more powerful than another. This is meant to keep the country from becoming undemocratic and having a single entity make all decisions. Without this system in place, one branch of government could gain power over the others and make decisions without the input of the other branches. 

The Court’s decision in Trump v. United States paves the way for presidents to abuse their power and get away with illegal acts. Checks and balances “…play a restraining function, slowing down the centralization of state authority and the closing of democratic space” (Huq and Ginsburg 42). It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from abusing their power for fear of retaliation from the other branches. This Court decision allows more opportunity for a president to abuse their power by giving them immunity.

There is no easy answer to the question of presidential immunity. If president’s did not have any type of immunity there could be a norm of prosecuting past presidents for actions they took while in power. This would significantly decrease the influence of the presidency because presidents may not take certain actions for fear of prosecution. The question becomes “…which is worse for the nation: The clarified latitude that the majority’s immunity regime gives irresponsible presidents? Or the chilling of more responsible presidents by the specter of after-office criminal judgment, and the damage to our democracy from tit-for-tat prosecutions of past presidents, that the dissent’s position might invite?” (Goldsmith). Either way the system of checks and balances is weakened because the presidency either has too much power or too little power. 

Recently, the Supreme Court heard the case Trump v. United States, and made the decision to grant presidential immunity for “official acts” presidents may take while in office. This case involves former President Trump and his involvement in the January 6th insurrection. Trump is arguing that he should not be indicted for his actions following the 2020 election because the president has immunity for actions they take while in power. The Court decided that “…the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” (Trump v. United States, 2024). 

This decision greatly increases the power of the president. Our system of checks and balances allows for the branches to hold each other accountable for unconstitutional actions they may take. However, with absolute immunity for official acts, the other branches are not able to hold the president accountable for their unlawful actions. Since the president has immunity for official acts there are not as many opportunities for the other two branches to limit the president’s power. However, the president still has their checks on the other branches’ power making an unequal power distribution between the branches. The president now does not have to worry as much about retaliation from the other branches, which could lead to more corrupt presidents who take advantage of this fact. 

Moreover, the Court decided communicating with the attorney general is also an official act, so the president has absolute immunity regarding the attorney general. The constitution allows the president to appoint an attorney general and to give them law enforcement priorities to focus on. This does not mean that the president could order the attorney general to break the law without fear of prosecution.

However, this Court decision may make it possible for presidents to order the attorney general to execute illegal acts. Richard Lempert explains the concern that “…a sitting president could, without fear of later prosecution, order the attorney general to initiate a baseless prosecution against a political rival” (Lempert). In this example, the president could get rid of political opponents, increasing their chance of staying in power. 

This absolute immunity allows presidents more opportunity to engage in illegal acts without fear of retaliation because they can act through the attorney general. A president could use this ability to increase their power, and the other branches cannot stop them. 

The Court also decided that presidential immunity “…extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” (Trump v. United States, 2024). This wording makes the decision very vague and therefore harder to interpret. 

If a branch is trying to hold the president accountable for actions they have taken, it will be extremely difficult to prove the action was not an “official act” that is protected under presidential immunity. The president will be able to get away with more potentially illegal acts because it will be hard to prove they are not protected under presidential immunity. 

This significantly increases the president’s power and diminishes the other branches power. The other branches will not be able to effectively use their checks on the president’s power because it is difficult to prove any actions of the president are not protected under presidential immunity.  

The Court’s decision in Trump v. United States weakens the system of checks and balances by reducing the ability of the legislative and judicial branches to check the president’s power. With absolute immunity and immunity at the outer perimeter of the president’s authority, there are not many instances where the president’s power can be limited.