How the US Supreme Court brought America closer to becoming an autocracy

The US Supreme Court has ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for "official" actions that are within the powers afforded to them under the US constitution.

This is a landmark case that practically gives a free pass to the US president to do as they please as long as the action falls within the broad umbrella of "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility".

For Donald Trump, the former president facing prosecution for election subversion charges amid his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection in the US Congress, this ruling is a massive win. Not only does it place the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that none of the actions for which he is being prosecuted fall under his constitutional right, but it also delays case proceedings sufficiently for the elections to take place first.

With Trump pushing ahead in the national polls, it is now a possibility that he will win the elections and the US District Court for the District of Columbia will have to rule on a sitting president.

The supreme court ruling on Monday, however, has been decried as a "dangerous precedent" by President Joe Biden. He said that if Trump were elected in November, he would exploit this ruling.

"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said. "Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one — is above the law, not even the president of the United States."

Other politicians, like the progressive Democratic congresswoman from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had much harsher words and a far more stark warning.

"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she posted on X (formerly known as Twitter).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said, "This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law."

Schumer's comment highlights one of the reasons this ruling has created such a strong reaction among many. American democracy, which, by most standards, has held strong for more than two centuries, is built upon a constitution that ensures a delicate system of checks and balances. Neither Congress, the Senate, or the President have the power to make major changes outright, and there are limits to what even the federal government can do if state governments do not comply.

Granting immunity to any president on the basis of them acting under their constitutional authority removes a crucial part of the checks and balances that make US democracy robust.

Across the political spectrum, however, many Republican leaders have expressed satisfaction at the ruling. House speaker Mike Johnson said, "Today's ruling by the court is a victory for former president Trump and all future presidents…"

Marjorie Taylor Greene, the popular and controversial far-right member of Congress from Georgia, posted on X, "Today, the Supreme Court issued a decisive verdict in FAVOR of Presidential Immunity. This decision is a massive victory against the Democrats' weaponized government."

Donald Trump himself has taken this as a personal victory, posting on his own social media platform—Truth Social: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

It's also worth exploring the reason a contentious Supreme Court ruling has American politics divided so neatly along political lines. The US Supreme Court, the nine-member strong apex judicial body in the USA, has long been a battleground over long term control of the philosophical direction of the American legal system.

Justices are appointed by sitting presidents to the Supreme Court, and these appointments are for life, unless a justice wishes to step down. The process of confirming a Supreme Court appointment by any president involves a senate hearing followed by a vote by the senate on whether or not they find the appointee fit for the job.

In the past, Supreme Court appointees have rarely gotten rejected at the senate confirmation hearing. But in 2016, the Republican majority senate refused to confirm Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's nominee for the position of Supreme Court justice.

Shortly afterwards, Donald Trump became president, and with the backing of the Republican senate, coinciding with the retirement of one justice and the death of two (all of whom were either moderate or liberal), he appointed three conservative justices during his four-year term.

Thus changed the face of the US Supreme Court for a generation. Since Merrick Garland's non-appointment, each confirmation hearing for the position of Supreme Court justice has been a hotly contested political affair. Presidents have been incapable of getting through any nomination unless they had the backing of the senate being dominated by their own party, which has pushed the last two presidents to appoint decidedly liberal or conservative justices with the goal of turning the tide towards their own party.

Right now, the Supreme Court is tilted 6-3 with a majority of conservative judges, and they have already ruled on crucial cases such as overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that legalised abortion in America. With their most recent ruling on presidential immunity, they have taken American democracy to a different direction, and they have been able to do so because of years of political manoeuvring by presidents and senators over the Supreme Court.

Azmin Azran is digital features coordinator at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.