Federalist judges claim to loathe judicial activism.

To preserve the separation of powers, federalist judges restrict their rulings to the narrow set of facts and laws in front of them, and go not an inch further, lest their rulings impinge on the executive or legislative function. But to find criminal immunity for Donald Trump, the Court’s federalist majority bucked all traditional and originalist leanings, and announced instead that the court would be “writing a rule for the ages,” and dealt an astonishing blow to the U.S. Constitution.

After overturning Roe v. Wade for the sin of imposing “on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters, much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation,” the Court did the very thing it just ruled unconstitutional: it imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for presidential immunity, divided into three stages, exactly “like those one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.”

After declaring that the right to obtain an abortion was not “rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” the Court set 248 years of the Nation’s history and tradition on fire.

The Roberts Court wrote new law

With the stroke of a pen, federalists on the high court skipped the arduous but constitutionally required process to amend the constitution, and simply rewrote Articles I, II, and III of the U.S. Constitution to create the following three stages of presidential immunity:

• Absolute criminal immunity, which attaches whenever a former president acts within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. Any action undertaken under color or shade of the Constitution or laws is a function of core constitutional power, and Trump is free to break all criminal laws (bribery, treason, assassination) as long as he does so in pursuit of his core presidential duties, which are vast and comprehensive. 
• Presumptive immunity, which attaches to other official acts and shifts the burden to the government to show that criminal prosecution would not create a “danger of intrusion” on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. When Trump tried to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to stop the electoral count and adopt fraudulent electors, for example, Chief Justice Roberts said he was “presumptively” immune, a presumption the government could fight to rebut.
• No immunity attaches for “unofficial acts,” but lower courts are left to guess where the line between official and unofficial lies, and Roberts put his thumb on the scale by barring evidence of “immune” acts from becoming evidence.

Roberts wrote that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through, weigh and consider the evidence to figure out what presidential conduct was unofficial. “That analysis,” he wrote, “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.” The court could have examined Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election through the contorted lens of its own ruling, but that would have saved time. The court’s goal was to send the case back to District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan for detailed factual and evidentiary hearings that appellate courts and the Supreme Court will review again, months and possibly years after the November election.

The Roberts Court amended the Constitution

When they wrote the Constitution, the framers did not draft immunity for the president; they did just the opposite by providing for the removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They also granted limited immunity to legislators in Art. I, §6, the Speech or Debate Clause: “Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest (while traveling to and from, and while attending, Congress) and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Note that the founders immunized their speech — not their actions.

The founders expressly declined to extend similar immunities to presidents. This was no oversight. Rather, the Constitution in Article I expressly anticipates criminal prosecution: after a president is impeached, convicted, and removed from office, he “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” 

Not so, says the Roberts court. Article I of the Constitution now provides that the president “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, but only as to those acts that fall outside the president’s absolute and presumptive and criminal immunity from prosecution and good luck finding an act by the president that is not related to his core function.”

Since SCOTUS also just stripped the federal government of most of its power to fight climate change, we may very well have met the breaking point that triggers justifiable political violence.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.