Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor Fear Mongers Following Immunity Ruling, Claims Presidents Could Assassinate Political Rivals, Launch Coups

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most important rulings of this term in Trump v. United States. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court ruled that 45th President Donald Trump is partially immune from special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution. Trump was granted absolute immunity for "official acts" while not being granted immunity for "unofficial acts." The majority's opinion was heavily criticized, however, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who argued in a dissent that the ruling would allow the President to use the military to assassinate his political rival or launch a coup to stay in power while still being immune from criminal prosecution. 

"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune," Sotomayor wrote. "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop," the liberal justice added, concluding, "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

In response to Sotomayor's dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the majority's ruling shields future and former presidents from prosecution for official acts in order to prevent the back-and-forth prosecutions that would take place if immunity was not in place. "The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors."

Justice Sotomayor has demonstrated her willingness to fear-monger about unrealistic hypotheticals and twist the majority's opinion to rile up her fellow liberals. Congress has the power to constrain the President through the impeachment process, and the Supreme Court has set the record straight by mandating that the criminal prosecution of a former president for his official acts is now off the table.

You can follow Sterling on X/Twitter here.