The Trump Court Fails to Harness Absolute Presidential Immunity Undermining Democratic Values

This paper examines one of the most significant cases on executive power in the past fifty years, Trump (2024), and argues that the U.S. Supreme Court chipped away at democratic governance by expanding presidential immunity in ways that shield unlawful conduct. The aim of the paper is to show how the Court, while purporting to rely on a broad originalist approach, disregarded substantial founding-era evidence to inflate presidential authority, normalize elite deviance, and erode legal accountability once an executive leaves office. The decision arose from former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump sought to pressure Republican governors, secretaries of state, and state legislatures to invalidate certified results by substituting slates of Biden electors with slates pledged to Trump or by fabricating evidence of fraud. He admonished then Vice President Mike Pence to change the results and prevent Joseph Biden from taking office. On January 6, 2021, Trump called for supporters to attend a rally, which resulted in an attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached for incitement of insurrection but was acquitted in the Senate trial before his term ended. Following the attack, suits were filed seeking damages for Trump’s actions during the riot. Trump argued that he enjoyed presidential immunity, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded his conduct did not fall within the “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. Because Trump had left office, the court held he lacked lawful discretionary authority and could not claim executive immunity. While Trump declined to appeal, the Department of Justice initiated a criminal investigation into Trump’s actions related to the election and January 6, resulting in four federal charges. Trump moved to dismiss the federal indictment, asserting both presidential immunity and the Senate’s acquittal barred prosecution under the Impeachment Judgment Clause. After losing in the lower courts, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court held the president has immunity for official acts and this immunity extends to deliberations with executive branch subordinates. The majority justified its reasoning by claiming that extending immunity to official acts was necessary to prevent partisan retaliation and the use of the legal system against political challengers. This paper argues the Trump Court grasped at far-reaching inferences from the nature of presidential power exercised within the modern presidency and discarded robust originalist evidence against claims of executive immunity. Founding figures such as Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson explicitly pledged that executives could be prosecuted for criminal acts committed while exercising Article II authority. By insulating unlawful exercises of power, the decision diminishes accountability and weakens democratic constraint. The paper concludes by emphasizing how the Court plays an integral role in shaping the boundaries of presidential authority, even as its interpretations generate ongoing tensions over executive power and democratic accountability.