On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President of the United States is above the law. 

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court reviewed allegations against former President Donald Trump regarding his purported attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and his role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Rather than reaffirm the foundational democratic principle that a president is not a king, the Court’s conservative majority rejected it. 

The Court made a controversial decision to significantly broaden presidential powers, allowing “official acts” to be used as a shield against legal accountability, signaling one of the most overt shifts towards authoritarianism the United States has ever seen. 

The Court’s majority granted U.S. presidents complete immunity from criminal prosecution for actions deemed “central” to the presidency. This broad definition includes powers typically not shared with Congress, such as issuing pardons, appointing and dismissing executive officials, and exercising vetoes.

 Additionally, the Court established that the president enjoys a presumption of immunity for other official actions, with prosecutors required to overcome this supposition by demonstrating that enforcing criminal laws against such acts would not interfere with the executive branch’s authority and functions.

In other words, this sets a very high standard for prosecutors, effectively allowing presidents to evade accountability for crimes committed under the guise of their extensive role as commander-in-chief and their duty to faithfully execute the laws.

The Supreme Court has established a framework that effectively transforms the presidency, with its built-in constitutional checks and balances, into a position of unchecked power akin to a dictatorship.

 This new structure permits actions that were previously constrained by law, allowing a president to commit crimes with little fear of accountability under the guise of official duties. 

According to the majority opinion, a president could potentially engage in corrupt activities such as selling pardons, accepting bribes for legislative actions, violently ousting an attorney general, obstructing DOJ investigations, and more. 

As previously mentioned, the president is granted at least an assumption of immunity for other official actions, which could include extreme anti-democratic measures like blatantly targeting political opponents or orchestrating a military coup to maintain power. 

Although these scenarios may resemble the acts of authoritarian rulers far away from the United States, they now reflect a very real and very concerning shift in American political reality.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote: 

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers…he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune…In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

These matters are far from hypothetical. 

This ruling guarantees that President Trump will not face trial for his role in the January 6 insurrection before the upcoming election. Should he win in November and pursue his stated intention to act as a dictator on the first day of of his second term, he will have at his disposal the authoritarian precedent established by the court majority he influenced. 

Three out of the nine current Justices were appointed by Trump himself, creating a rock-solid conservative majority in the foreseeable future to apply such precedent.

Stealth Authoritarianism is defined by Ozan O. Varol as “the use of legal mechanisms that exist in regimes with favorable democratic credentials for anti-democratic ends”. The decision made in Trump v. United States exemplifies Stealth Authoritarianism by using judicial review to consolidate executive power and erode checks and balances, granting absolute immunity from criminal prosecution of the abuse of powers not shared with any other governmental branch.

 However, the consequences of this ruling may extend beyond mere Stealth Authoritarianism, representing complete and total Constitutional Retrogression.

Out of the five pathways of Constitutional Retrogression defined by Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg, Trump v. United States clearly encompasses two of them: the elimination of institutional checks and the centralization and politicization of executive power. 

Although the Court’s decision adheres to Constitutional procedures and norms, it has established a new and dangerous precedent that will fundamentally alter the landscape of presidential power and legal accountability in ways that will undoubtedly erode the core principles of our democratic system.

Depending on the results of the upcoming presidential election, the United States may face the unprecedented scenario of a legal autocrat in charge of our country.

 The Supreme Court has effectively equipped Donald Trump—and future presidents—with a powerful legal tool that will surely shift our country’s fate away from the democracy we have enjoyed for so long.

The decision made in Trump v. United States has signaled a greenlight for authoritarianism.