“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” It is July 1, 2024, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the case Trump v. United States. Liberals, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the above quote, are furious while conservatives praise the 6-3 decision that split between Republicans in the majority and Democrats in the minority. The Court’s judgment holds that former President Trump and other current and former presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution concerning their official acts as president. Identity politics have consumed the discussion around this trial where a former president accused of conspiracy is seeking reelection to the highest executive office.

Is democracy in the United States under threat as the Justice suggests, or is this simply the Court interpreting the law to the best of its ability?

The last few election cycles in the United States have certainly generated a lot of discussion as to whether democracy is eroding. Focusing on this case, it is important to define what democratic erosion looks like. As Lust and Waldner see it, there are three areas in which democratic erosion takes place: “competitive electoral procedures, civil and political liberties, and accountability.” Similarly, other experts maintain that fundamental changes must occur in all three areas simultaneously for democracy to backslide. If Trump v. United States is an example of democratic backsliding/erosion, then, based on this framework, the decision will impact at least one of these three areas.

Firstly, does the result of this case and the Supreme Court’s ruling directly impact the integrity of competitive elections? Yes, the lower court’s decision after the Supreme Court’s decision will influence elections. How? The prosecution is charging former President Donald Trump with “2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding… 1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States… [and] 1 felony count of conspiracy against rights…,” all of which are related to the results of a federal election.

If the outcome determines that activities related to elections are considered official actions of the president, then what is to stop later presidents from trying to influence elections? While the certification has long been seen as merely a ceremonial event, it serves as a visible representation of the transfer of power in the United States and the official recognition of the Electoral College’s vote for president.

Subversion of the people’s will through disruption of this official proceeding is a real possibility. Giving a blanket check to the president through this case that allows him or her to contest the results of any election is a dangerous precedent for the future of American democracy.

Executive power has grown at an unprecedented rate in the United States since the middle of the 20^th century through the increased scope of executive orders and the expansion of the executive-controlled bureaucracy. Unlike these examples where the executive reaches beyond the scope of their power, the courts are now presented with a decision on the size and scope of the executive.

Experts like Ozan Varol see controversial rulings from the courts that expand the executive’s power as a tool used by authoritarianism. In the first weigh-in by the Supreme Court, they split along ideological lines (6-3). It is difficult to gauge the true motivations behind the justices’ opinions, as the controversial nature of the defendant makes it almost impossible to stay impartial.

The majority’s opinion could very well be a sound interpretation of the law. It may also be politically motivated by the fact that the former president appointed three of the justices. For now, the public assumes that the Supreme Court approached the case from a position of impartiality and belief in democracy, not one that salvages Trump’s ability to run for office.

Secondly, does this case impact civil and political liberties in a perceivable way? Yes, though the application is extremely narrow. All American citizens enjoy the right to free speech, as set forth by the First Amendment. However, restrictions can be placed on speech that threatens the safety of others or the constitutionally mandated powers of the state.

While this case deals specifically with the executive, its outcome still has implications for applying the First Amendment. If the case is decided favorably for former President Trump, then the freedom of speech is upheld, and the “bully pulpit” is strengthened. Presidents would then enjoy greater protection when using the media spotlight, allowing them to propagate whatever information they want to the American public, regardless of its veracity.

Some may paint this decision as a good thing for the freedom of speech; however, it fails to account for broader context. While this is ultimately a free speech case in some respects, it deals with only one figure: the president. New groups in America are not given a new voice through this case. Rather, the most powerful individual in the world is given more latitude to say whatever they like, only backtracking when they experience backlash. Perhaps more important is its impact on the final tenet: accountability.

Lastly, does the outcome of this case influence the president’s accountability to the American people? Yes, this case will influence how accountable the president is to the American people. Should Judge Tanya Chutkan interpret that Trump’s actions fell within the core powers of the president or that the prosecution’s case materially impacts the power of the executive, the case can be thrown out.

We now know that the case will not be decided before the November election, leaving the possibility of a second Trump term. If he should win, the Justice Department would be instructed to drop the case. In both instances, the American people are left in suspense as to whether or not the sitting president committed several federal crimes.

While lawyers, scholars, and the public can all debate the facts of the case, it is undeniable that this case has the potential to set the bar extremely high to find presidents liable in any context for their actions. Should presidents live in fear of the judicial system when taking official actions? No. Executive paralysis during a crisis helps no one. However, in gross abuses of power, there should be an impartial avenue through which the president can be held accountable.

Having put together a framework to look at Trump v. United States concerning democratic backsliding in the United States, three areas were explored: Election integrity, civil and political liberties, and accountability. In my analysis, I conclude that all three areas will be influenced by the outcome of this case against the former president: some positively, some negatively depending on one’s views.

Despite influence in all three areas, there is not conclusive evidence that this case is undermining American democracy. The same experts from which my framework was taken have demonstrated that, since the Cold War, slow erosion is the biggest threat to democracy, not single inflection points. If a trend of controversial court cases is established, this decision would certainly be considered because it influences elections, civil liberties, and executive accountability. The result of this case will not turn the United States into an autocracy overnight; rather, we must remain vigilant about its impacts and the health of our institutions.