A tipping point for the American presidency

Plus, why political parties matter

BEN RADERSTORF

A wild, pivotal week for our democracy.?

We saw the first-ever criminal trial of a former president — and yet, somehow, it wasn’t the most important news story. No, that was the Supreme Court’s hearing yesterday on whether Donald Trump — and the presidency in general — is above the law (either expressly through criminal immunity or by default through procedural delays ).

It’s hard to overstate the importance of this case, both on its own and as a centerpiece of Trump’s second-term aim of radically expanded executive power, as Charlie Savage explains .

For more on the rest of Trump’s executive power plans, read our Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 .

Kristy Parker , a former federal prosecutor, and Conor Gaffney , a counsel focused on abuses of power, are two of the authors on our guide to prosecuting political leaders during an election .?

Their four takeaways from the Supreme Court case that has held up Trump’s January 6th trial for weeks (134 days and counting):

1. Several of the justices seemed more concerned with hypothetical “burdens” criminal liability would impose on future presidents than with former President Trump’s role in the insurrection. Read more→

1. Several justices seemed to think that the laws and processes that apply to ordinary Americans and other federal officials might subject the president to unfair prosecution. Read more→?

1. There’s reason to be concerned that a majority of justices will send this case back to the lower courts for additional litigation on the immunity issue. Read more→?

1. But, there’s still a chance that the Court could hold that the former president is not immune for leading an insurrection to overturn a free and fair election in time to permit a trial. Read more→ ?

Not a great day for the Court or the four words — equal justice under law — inscribed on its facade. But the window has not yet closed for them to do the right thing.

As Kristy and Conor write:

In the end, Mr. Dreeben [the lawyer for the government] had it right when he said that the task before the Court is to uphold the principle that no one, including the president, is above the law, while also protecting the president in the exercise of his or her legitimate powers. He also had it right when he said this isn’t difficult to do in this case.?

Read the rest of their reactions here .?

Immunity wouldn’t just be an outrage —nbsp;it’s a national security risk

Trump’s lawyers and supporters argued that criminal immunity is necessary for the president to be able to take “bold action.” Forcing the president to obey the law, they argue, could harm national security.?

But in truth, the opposite is true.

Read the full piece here >>