Chief Justice John Roberts Bends The Knee To Trump

Chief Justice John Roberts appears to have sold out the independent third branch of government he leads, by choosing to bend the knee to former President Donald Trump.

Roberts has appeared in recent years to lose his leadership of the Supreme Court to the Trump-aligned wing of the Court. Roberts’s response has been to seize back control from the Trump wing by aligning with them, as documented in a powerful New York Times investigation. According to the Times, Roberts has “deploy[ed] his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump.”

There is no better example of Roberts’s transformation from a self-styled institutionalist to a Trump acolyte than the opinion he authored on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States. 

In his opinion, the Chief Justice gave to former President Trump king-like powers to potentially avoid accountability for the 2020 election interference and attempted coup for which Trump has been criminally indicted.

In essence, the Roberts opinion licenses a President – or a former President for actions taken while in office – to commit crimes with no criminal recourse.

According to the opinion, “[W]ith respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As to his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.”

Conservative Justices who have preached originalism and textualism in numerous opinions, hypocritically joined with Roberts to invent these rules with nothing to point to in the Constitution.

The Roberts opinion violates a foundational principle of our country that no person is above the law, a principle embedded in the Revolution that was fought to ensure that we would never again be ruled by a king.

The Roberts opinion all but ignores the first attempted presidential coup in our history and the violent Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol.

Roberts gives the back of the hand to the constitutional crisis Trump created.

The Chief Justice wrote in his opinion, “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of the Republic. Our perspective must be more farsighted.”

At oral argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh also showed little, if any, interest in the attempted presidential coup that was the basis of the case before the Court, saying, “I’m not focused on the here and now of this case. I’m very concerned about the future.”

Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch said at oral argument, “We’re writing a rule for the ages.”

But the rule the majority chose to write is an invitation for a future President, including a possible future President Trump, to repeat the 2020 attempted coup, not to ensure it does not happen again.

Perhaps the touchstone of the Roberts opinion is the unlimited power it gives to a President in its ruling on Trump’s dealings with his Justice Department.

According to the opinion, “The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were ‘sham[s]’ or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. […] Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

As a result, a President now has the power to direct the Justice Department or the FBI to arrest, indict, prosecute, or do worse, to a political opponent, to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or even to a Supreme Court Justice, without cause or legal consequence.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a notable dissent, “In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under­standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.”

Sotomayor continues, “There is a twisted irony in saying, as the majority does, that the person charged with ‘tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ can break them with impunity.”

In 1803, in the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court would be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality and meaning of our nation’s laws.

In 2024, in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a President sits above the law and has the ultimate authority to violate our nation’s criminal laws without consequence.

In 1789, our Founders enacted a Constitution to protect us from being ruled by a king, dictator, or tyrant.

In 2024, the Roberts-led Court majority has taken us down a dangerous new road allowing dictators and authoritarians to bypass the Constitution’s checks-and-balances and exercise unchecked, unaccountable power.

____________