Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore, Trump v. U.S.

The Trump Immunity Case is One of the Worst Decisions Ever

It is not hyperbolic to say that the Presidential Immunity Decision in Trump v. U.S. (2024) is one of the worst decided cases in our nation’s history. It’s not even difficult to see why. The decision creates an umbrella of protection around the Presidency that pre-empts any possibility of accountability so long as it can be construed as an “official act.” The immunity in the Court’s wording was “absolute” for actions within the established duties of the Presidency and “presumptive” in the outer perimeter of his duties. What’s an “official act” for the President in that case? Pretty much everything when they’re in office. It turns out that when Trump claimed he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it, if he were to win the White House he could do just that.

But the decision doesn’t even stop there with this inane stupidity. It limits the scope of evidence that can be presented in relation to such acts. Right now, Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave wondering why he’d even pass a tape with an 18 1/2 minute gap to Congress when all he had to do was make this argument and withhold it outright.

With this decision, the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court condones a President being able to do pretty much whatever he or she wants. As Sonia Sotomayor commented during arguments, the White House can now be the center of organized criminality.

There is no mention of Presidential immunity within the context of the Constituton itself. Suddenly, all these “originalists” and “strict constructionists” concoct one out of thin air—isn’t that what they always criticized liberal interpretations of the Constitution about for years? You know, it had been assumed there was “sovereign immunity” back in 1793, the first year of the first Congress, when the Supreme Court made the decision Chisholm v. Georgia making the very clear statement that it was never included. Congress quickly rectified that by passing the 11th Amendment. Nothing prevents Congress from doing the same and passing legislation stipulating there is an immunity and providing the limits and extents of it. Instead, we have the Roberts Court doing so by fiat, another thing they criticized more liberal courts of doing for years. Such a travesty.

This decision is essentially yet another in a long line of Republican Party power grabs. For as much as Roberts wants the Supreme Court to be viewed as a legitimate and wisest of the three branches of government, it has become nothing but the enforcer of a conservative agenda that completely tramples cases that favor the left, and completely supports and reinforces any case that advances their cause to the right. It’s galling. The intellectual gymnastics and pliability of supposedly principled justices would make a contortionist stretch beyond belief.

The Roberts Court legacy will be a lasting one and not in a good way. It will be viewed as the period when the Court half near broke America. If it continues on this path it may become irrevocably broken.

PurpleAmerica’s Cultural Corner

As a lawyer and a student of history, I’m always thinking of what are some of the best and worst decisions and where they fit into things. Most cases, even when you disagree with them, they at least have an intellectual foundation where you can kind of see where they are coming from. Take Roe v. Wade for instance. When it was first decided (7-2, and was largely not controversial at the time), many of the left praised it. Personally, I think its one of the smartest and well crafted decisions ever, written by the former General Counsel for the Mayo Clinic. But I also can see how many on the right abhorred it, and how it fueled the conservative movement into the 80s, 90s and into the 21st century. Dobbs, it’s antithesis, I disagree with for many reasons, but I can still see the principles from which they are basing their decision on (again, I disagree with them—don’t write hate mail to me about how I’m a right wing tool).

But some cases are so lacking in foundation and principle and basic humanity or sanity to be completely repugnant.

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford. Probably the worst decided case ever. Not only did Chief Justice Taney decide the case against Scott, he then went on to expand the decision to areas unrelated to the case directly at hand, including finding the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and denying basic rights to ANY black person, slave or free man. The case was so horrendous, it greased the wheels downhill toward the start of the Civil War.

2. Plessy v. Ferguson. You can include the “Civil Rights cases of 1883” with this as those predated Plessy but there were several cases there that construed the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause so narrowly so as to make it utterly absent, leading to Jim Crow. The Plessy case consolidated all of those cases and legitimized Jim Crow by uttering those three words that personified it… “Separate but Equal.” We’re still dealing with the aftermath effects of this.

3. Buck v. Bell. In this 8-1 decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the Court’s most esteemed members all time, wrote the majority opinion condoning eugenics and approving of forced sterilization for those with intellectual disabilities. Atrocious. It’s an abyssmal black stain on an otherwise stellar judicial career.

4. Korematsu v. U.S. At the onset of WWII, Japanese Americans were collectively interned in camps on the idea that they were national security threats, without due process, based only on their heritage, and regardless of their standing in their communities. Korematsu contested his incarceration and lost. Stunningly, this case is still on the books, and was actually affirmed after 9/11 in cases regarding GITMO detainees.

5. Bush v. Gore. Following recounts showing him 537 votes behind Bush, Gore asked for hand recounts in several Florida counties favorable to him. The Florida Supreme Court granted it, and expanded it to other counties as well. Bush appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court split on purely partisan grounds. In truth, that was expected and is not the reason this is a horrible decision. It’s horrible because each of the conservative individual justices used different and contorted and contrived logic to get there. Worst of all, Rehnquist had the audacity to claim that even though it was their decision, it was not ever to be used as precedent. Horrific.

And now we have Trump v. U.S. to add to this list. What are some other ones you might consider? Citizens United? Lochner v. NY. Let me know your least favorite decisions in the comments.

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

For most of the latter half of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court was always the branch of government that polled the best; in 2000 it had a 60% approval rating. It’s because some cases would go one way, some of the other, but most of them had legitimate, reasoned and rational thought that went beyond partisan politics. It’s what we want in government. Principled leadership and compromise.

Since 2016, the Supreme Court has consistently polled in the low 40s and recently in the 30s, largely mirroring what we see in Presidential polling. That is a sign of it’s rank partisanship and disdain.

At least those still both poll better than Congress. At different points in the last year, it dropped into the low teens, going as low as 12% in February 2024.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

“Humans, as a species, are never immune from stupidity.”- Kurt Vonnegut

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE!!!

Footnotes and Fun Stuff