Obama: The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in Trump v. US has upended the maxim that “no one is above the law.”
By Kebbi Daily News on Mon Jul 21 2025
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. United States that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions within their “core constitutional powers” (e.g., pardons, military command) and presumptive immunity for other official acts within the “outer perimeter” of their duties. Unofficial acts, however, remain prosecutable.
No One Above the Law? A Foundational Principle Under Fire
The United States was built on the principle that “no one is above the law,” a cornerstone of democracy meant to ensure accountability for all, from citizens to presidents. Yet, a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States has carved out a significant exception, granting former President Donald Trump—and future presidents—broad immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” conducted during their tenure. This decision, hailed by Trump as a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY” on Truth Social, has sparked fierce debate, with critics like Justice Sonia Sotomayor arguing it “makes a mockery” of the rule of law
The Ruling: Absolute and Presumptive Immunity for Presidents
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. United States that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions within their “core constitutional powers” (e.g., pardons, military command) and presumptive immunity for other official acts within the “outer perimeter” of their duties. Unofficial acts, however, remain prosecutable. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, argued this protects the executive branch’s functionality, preventing presidents from being paralyzed by fear of prosecution.
The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for alleged election interference in 2020, including:
Using false claims of election fraud to pressure state officials.
Organizing fraudulent electors in seven states.
Pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s win.
Leveraging Justice Department officials for sham investigations.
The Court ruled Trump absolutely immune for his Justice Department interactions and presumptively immune for discussions with Pence, sending the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which acts were “unofficial.” This effectively delayed Trump’s trial past the 2024 election, a strategic victory for the former president.
The Dissent: A “King Above the Law”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a scathing dissent, warning that the ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and creates a “law-free zone” around official acts. She cited extreme hypotheticals: a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a rival or taking a bribe for a pardon would be immune if deemed “official.” Sotomayor argued this undermines the principle that “no man is above the law,” placing presidents in a separate justice system.
President Joe Biden echoed this concern, stating, “There are no kings in America… No one is above the law, not even the president.” He called the ruling a “dangerous precedent” that removes limits on presidential power. Biden proposed a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment” to clarify that presidents face criminal liability for crimes, regardless of official status.
Real-World Implications: Trump and Beyond
Trump’s Legal Battles
The ruling has immediate effects on Trump’s legal challenges:
Election Interference Case: The case is stalled as Judge Chutkan parses official vs. unofficial acts, making a pre-election trial unlikely. If Trump wins in 2024, he could appoint an attorney general to dismiss the case or pardon himself.
Classified Documents Case: On July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed charges against Trump, citing the unconstitutional appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith, bolstered by Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in Trump v. United States.
New York Conviction: Trump’s sentencing for his 2024 Manhattan conviction was delayed to November, with his lawyers citing the immunity ruling to challenge evidence. The Manhattan DA agreed to pause sentencing until after Trump’s second term, if he wins.
Broader Consequences
The ruling sets a precedent for future presidents, raising alarms:
Unrestrained Power: As Sotomayor warned, presidents could exploit official powers (e.g., Justice Department control) for criminal ends without fear of prosecution..
Delayed Accountability: The need to litigate “official” vs. “unofficial” acts could mire cases in years of appeals, as seen with Trump’s election case.
Erosion of Trust: Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, present during the January 6 Capitol attack, said the ruling empowers Trump, undermining democracy. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “sad day for our democracy.”
The X Perspective: Public Outrage and Support
On X, reactions to the ruling were polarized:
@ElectionWiz: “BREAKING: In Trump v. United States, US Supreme Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.”
@AnthonyMKreis: Noted the Court’s distinction between absolute and presumptive immunity, highlighting the lack of immunity for unofficial acts.
@tribelaw: Argued Trump’s stance “would collapse our system of separated powers,” placing presidents beyond accountability.
Critics on X echoed Sotomayor’s fears, warning of a “loaded weapon” for future presidents, while supporters like Trump celebrated it as a constitutional victory.
Historical Context: A New Precedent
Historically, presidential immunity was limited. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Court granted absolute immunity for civil damages within official duties, but Clinton v. Jones (1997) denied immunity for pre-presidency acts. The Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents never extended to former presidents—until Trump v. United States. Even Trump’s own lawyers once conceded during his impeachment trial that he could be prosecuted after leaving office.
The Court’s rejection of Trump’s claim that prosecution requires prior impeachment and conviction was a small restraint, but the broad immunity granted marks a departure from the principle that all are equal under the law.
Navigating the New Reality: What Can Be Done?
The immunity ruling challenges accountability but doesn’t eliminate it entirely. Here’s how to respond:
Support Constitutional Reform: Back Biden’s proposed amendment to ensure presidents face criminal liability, reinforcing “no one is above the law.”
Demand Transparency: Push for clearer definitions of “official” vs. “unofficial” acts to limit abuse. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence suggested a two-step test to evaluate immunity, which could guide future clarity.
Strengthen Non-Criminal Checks: Impeachment, though flawed, remains a tool. Public pressure and electoral accountability can also deter abuse.
Stay Informed: Follow legal developments on platforms like X or through sources like the ACLU, which criticized the ruling as a “dangerous precedent.”
Advocate for Judicial Reform: Critics like former January 6 Committee chairman Bennie Thompson called the Court “lawless and corrupt.” Calls for Supreme Court reform, like term limits or ethics codes, are growing.
The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in Trump v. United States has upended the maxim that “no one is above the law.” By granting former President Donald Trump—and future presidents—absolute and presumptive immunity for official acts, the Court has created a legal shield that critics warn could enable unchecked power. As Justice Sotomayor put it, the decision “plants the seeds of absolute power,” threatening democracy itself.
While Trump celebrates, the public, lawmakers, and scholars grapple with a new reality where a former president may indeed stand above the law. The fight for accountability now depends on constitutional reform, public vigilance, and a commitment to restoring the rule of law for all—no exceptions.