“Be there, will be wild!”

The U.S. is closing in the 2020 presidential election between then current President Donald Trump and democrat candidate Joe Biden and states are tallying up the votes. President Trump preaches election fraud claims towards his followers and at his rally speech. He even goes to pressure the Vice President Mike Pence to altar election results or block certifications. His followers many who are white supremacy like “The Proud Boys” and many others enters the Capital armed and dangerous in order to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election encouraged by Trump in various speeches and tweets.

Court Case

This case took place in 2024 after Donald Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four counts arising from an investigation into the January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. capital. Trump is claiming that he cannot be prosecuted for his official acts as president and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he has first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. An essential question that has been raised is, “does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent?” Court ruled a 6-3 decision for Trump stating, “a former U.S. president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.”

The Indictment Claims:

1. Trump urged the Justice department to conduct sham investigations and alert state officials of suspected fraud to replace legitimate electors.
2. Trump tried to convince the vice president to reject legitimate electoral votes at the January 6^th certification proceeding.
3. Trump tried to convince state officials private parties, and the public that election fraud tainted the vote.
4. Trump used tweets and January 6^th speech to urge supports to pressure the vice president at the capitol building.

Is this ruling Legal? (the Legal framework)

Let’s dive into the legality of the framework. The court specifically look at the Executive Vesting Clause (define) and separation of powers, which sitting presidents and former ones hold to immunity from criminal prosecution for certain acts taken while in office. Apparently, it would look disreputable for any of the U.S. presidents to have to serve jail time but not shameful if that president or former president has done something to dismantle the constitution. It is quite common in fact for presidency’s to serve time, there are at least 78 countries including many democracies where leaders have faced criminal charges.

Brazil

A most notable example is Brazil, the attack on their Supreme Court on January 8^th, 2023 in protest of election turnout. Many of former President Jair Bolsonaro supporters invaded government buildings and called for the removal of newly elected President Luiz Inacio Lula se Silva from office. Like the January riot, they vandalized the court by damaging art pieces and the building itself. Unlike the U.S., Bolsonaro was convicted and sentenced to over 27 years in prison for leading a coup attempt to overturn the 2022 election, including polling to assassinate President Silva, Vice president Geraldo Alckmin, and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Brazil acted resilient when in protection of democracy and punishing those who will dismantle the foundation itself but, in some cases, like the U.S., we awarded a candidate a second term and who cannot be charged on criminal charges.

Threats to Democracy

 It is unprecedented that no one is above the law. Not even the president. As Justice Sotomayor warns us this transforms the president into a “king above the law,” allowing them to use official powers for evil ends without fear of liability. This is a new path of dismantling the Presidential Accountability Model, a framework designed to ensure the U.S. president is not above the law and remains answerable for actions taken in office. As we’ve seen in class, one of the core characteristics of democratic erosion is ‘Orchestrated by Incumbents’ who manipulate and subvert democratic intuitions. A better term is ‘Autocratic Legalism’ which Kim Lane Scheppelt says, it is when elected leaders dismantle democratic checks and balances, consolidate power, and establish authoritarian rule under the guise of legitimacy. It is a “silent” or “creeping” authoritarianism where leaders use new laws to weaponize the legal system, often targeting courts, media, and civil society. As well as jeopardizing the horizontal accountability the institutions are supposed to uphold and to ensure officials are responsible of their actions. With this court ruling, I argue that the Trump administration appears to be moving in a direction that could potentially expand or exploit the Supreme Court’s decision beyond its intended scope.

How can Judiciary hold independency?

Massachusetts is a strong example of judicial independence at the state level because of its merit-based appointment system and secure judicial tenure. Judges are appointed by the governor but screened by a Judicial Nominating Commission to ensure professional qualifications rather than party loyalty. Once appointed, judges serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70, which shields them from electoral pressures and political retaliation. The independence of the state’s highest court was notably demonstrated in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage despite significant political controversy, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional principles over popular opinion. Massachusetts is ranked highly in national rule of law and court performance. It has established safety rails for separation of power and maintaining the judiciary independence in making decisions without the influence of politics.

Work Cited

Scheppele, Kim L. (2018) “Autocratic Legalism,” University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 85: Iss. 2, Article 2.

Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center. (2024, May 16). Legal autocracies under the guise of “democracies” – Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center. https://rfkhumanrights.org/our-voices/legal-autocracies-under-the-guise-of-democracies/#:~:text=This%20phenomenon%20is%20often%20described,to%20the%20entire%20legal%20system.

Trump v. United States. (2024, July 1). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-939?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Trump v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 18, 2026, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES. (2024). In S. Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf