“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:
- Trump urged the Justice department to conduct sham investigations and alert state officials of suspected fraud to replace legitimate electors.
- Trump tried to convince the vice president to reject legitimate electoral votes at the January 6th certification proceeding.
- Trump tried to convince state officials private parties, and the public that election fraud tainted the vote.
- Trump used tweets and January 6th 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 8th, 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
Your post raises an important point about the potential impact of presidential immunity on democratic accountability, and I believe your use of ideas like autocratic legalism enhances the interest of your argument. It makes it readily obvious that this case has wider institutional effects in addition to being about a single individual.
However, I thought that some aspects of your argument needed more careful development. For instance, even though you argue that the decision could weaken democracy, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed explanation of how the Court’s difference between official and unofficial acts actually works in reality. The argument seems a little general without it.
Although it wasn’t entirely related to your main point, I found the comparison with other nations, such as Brazil, to be interesting. Rather than simply demonstrating that similar incidents occurred elsewhere, it might be more persuasive if you clarified how those examples directly relate to the U.S. case.
Overall, your post expresses serious concerns regarding presidential authority, but however, your argument would be strengthened by providing a more detailed legal explanation and making the connections between your examples more obvious.
I agree with this post’s main argument that excessive presidential power threatens democracy. No one should be above the law, yet Trump v. United States (2024) grants presidents broad immunity for “official acts,” creating a dangerous precedent. While intended to shield executives from political interference, it weakens accountability and risks concentrating power, undermining checks and balances essential to democracy.
This aligns with “democratic erosion,” where institutions function formally but lose effectiveness. Contrast this with South Korea, where accountability prevails. Former President Park Geun-hye was impeached in 2017 for corruption, convicted of bribery, and sentenced to 20 years by the Supreme Court in 2021. Ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol faced impeachment in December 2024 over martial law and received a life sentence in February 2026 for insurrection. These cases show democracies can hold leaders legally accountable, preventing erosion unlike the U.S. ruling.
The tension between executive authority and accountability is critical. Without strong legal limits, even established democracies risk imbalance and eroded civil rights. Korea’s examples affirm robust judicial independence can safeguard democracy.
References:
Trump v. United States (2024) – Democratic Erosion Consortium
BBC News, “Park Geun-hye: South Korea court upholds 20-year jail term” (Jan 13, 2021)
CNBC, “Former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol gets life sentence” (Feb 19, 2026)
Your journal has a good analysis about threat of democracy drawn by the Supreme Court by giving Trump and other presidents indulgence for their act in their presidency. Your way of developing logic why eliminating fear of liability to presidencts can lead to rapid democratic erosion also was enough to make readers understand about the claim you are making. The part that I agree is that there was no proper punishment about the riot caused by the extreme claims made by Trump, but he is awarded through his second term of presidency. Also, the example of Brazil that you presented as a good model was a excellent example which proposed how can US change the system. But the example of Massachusetts was not convincing to the readers because the Judicial Nominating Commission cannot be a evidence that the judges appointed by them are fair and neutral. If you add how the Judicial Nominating Commission was consisted of, it would be a better logic.
I was inspired by this statement about separation of power between a president and judiciary. Once the president tries to occupy judiciary and build more barricades around he or she, democratic erosion is likely to become realistic while it stands silent. In most of the countries, prosecution towards the president is not allowed during his/her term of office. I wonder if this fits to proper democracy or not. It could prevent further confusion that can happen when the president is in jail, but it might creates immunity to the higher power. Your case analysis of Brazil is interesting and great. I newly learned that Former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro is sentenced to 27 years. Lastly, I was surprised Massachusetts is a great example for independent judiciary. I wanna know what other elements make judicial court fair and well-recognized as possessing independent power except the one mentioned above.