The president is not above the law.
[link removed]
American democracy is at stake in the 2024 election. The Brennan Center has a plan to defend election workers, protect voters of color, and safeguard election results. We need your generous support to put it in action — will you make a 2x-matched donation now?
[link removed]
DONATE >>
[link removed]
“If the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” So said Richard Nixon after his resignation.
In his last days in office, Nixon had argued to the Supreme Court that he could not be investigated by a special prosecutor. He said the Court lacked the power even to hear the case.
But the justices disagreed. By a unanimous vote in United States v. Nixon, they ordered him to obey a grand jury subpoena and turn over his secret Oval Office tapes. Nixon’s own choice as chief justice, Warren Burger, wrote the opinion. The president, the ruling said, is not above the law.
All of which makes the rapidly developing legal showdown at the Supreme Court so vital for the health of our democracy. Donald Trump, as you’ve perhaps heard, has been charged in four separate criminal cases, two of them in federal court. His trial for trying to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power is due to start in federal court on March 4 in Washington, DC. Jury questionnaires already have been sent out to capital residents.
Trump’s lawyers argue that the former president cannot be prosecuted. Last week Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected that claim
[link removed]
. “Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” she wrote. Special Counsel Jack Smith does not want to wait for the wheels of justice to grind. Yesterday he asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on an emergency basis.
Although it is generally assumed that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, even that has never been formally decided: it comes from a footnote in a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo from 1973. But every president understood that they could face charges when they return to private life. Nixon himself seemed to accept the idea when he received Ford’s pardon. Bill Clinton, my old boss, was investigated and cleared after he left office for controversies around his use of the pardon power. I don’t recall too many people saying he should have been immune.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) explained his vote not to convict Trump during his second impeachment. “He didn’t get away with anything yet,” McConnell said. “We have a criminal justice system in this country.” Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh — who has expressed skepticism about whether presidents could be investigated — wrote as a private lawyer
[link removed]
, “The Constitution itself seems to dictate, in addition, that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office.”
If the Supreme Court were to rule that a president cannot be criminally tried for acts committed while in office, it would effectively immunize chief executives from any accountability, ever, and release them from the rule of law.
So the real issue here is not the ruling but the timing. Trump aims to push his trial into the months after the election. Perhaps by then he can order the Justice Department to drop the charges. Or he could even try to pardon himself. If justice is to be done, it should be done swiftly, giving voters a chance to process any possible verdict.
This will be one of the biggest cases in years. No doubt the Court will hear from a Greek chorus of friend-of-the-court briefs. Legal scholars will document the settled consensus against Trump. Former prosecutors will urge the Court not to immunize lawbreaking.
Trump himself has raised the stakes. He has made clear he wants to use the federal government for vengeance and that he hopes to wield the Justice Department for partisan and personal ends.
So far, even as it has lurched to the right, the Supreme Court has shown itself to be a hyper-conservative Court, not a MAGA Court. It pointedly declined to intervene in Trump’s election cases in 2020. It ruled, too, that he had to turn over his taxes to a grand jury.
The Supreme Court’s emphatic pronouncements helped force Nixon from office. Let’s hope that this time, the Court will make clear that presidents are not above the law. Otherwise, Richard Nixon’s claim would trump the logic of the Nixon case: if a president does it, that does mean it is not illegal.
Fixing Inhumane Conditions Behind Bars
With prisons and jails across the country suffering from overcrowding, understaffing, and poor infrastructure, the Justice Department is awarding millions of dollars to initiatives that seek to improve life behind bars. This historic funding coincides with a broader trend of rethinking the country’s corrections culture, and the Brennan Center is studying several groundbreaking prison reform projects that take a dignity-first approach to incarceration. “By focusing on not only the benefits of these initiatives but also the related opportunities and challenges, we hope to provide new, sustainable, and scalable solutions that jurisdictions can adopt,” Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Ram Subramanian write. Read more
[link removed]
Who Is Enabling Social Media Monitoring?
Today the Brennan Center and the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter urging the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether social media platforms Meta and X are complicit in widespread government surveillance. Though the companies claim they don’t give surveillance vendors access to users’ personal information, marketing materials and email correspondence from several such vendors suggest that Meta and X aren’t keeping these promises. “With all the evidence raising serious questions about Meta and X’s anti-surveillance commitments, the agency should act swiftly to ensure people’s privacy is being properly protected,” Ivey Dyson and Jake Snow write. Read more
[link removed]
Safely Using AI to Run Elections
Most election offices will likely expand their use of artificial intelligence in the coming years in hopes of improving efficiency and better serving voters. But any office that works with AI must adhere to high standards of quality, transparency, and consistency to ensure this technology doesn’t interfere with the right to vote. Our new resource in the AI and Democracy series
[link removed]
examines how election offices are already using AI tools and recommends safeguards they should implement ahead of the 2024 election. Read more
[link removed]
The Fight to Restore Voting Rights
In late January, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a case challenging Mississippi’s lifetime ban on voting for people convicted of certain felonies, after ruling in August that the ban was unconstitutional. Last week, the Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the remarkable ruling, which is poised to re-enfranchise tens of thousands of people. “As the opinion correctly notes, there is a ‘clear and consistent trend in our Nation against permanent disenfranchisement,’ which the full Fifth Circuit should recognize,” Patrick Berry writes. Read more
[link removed]
Efforts to Keep Trump Off the Ballot
Cases aiming to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol are making their way through state courts in Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota. In State Court Report, former National Law Journal editor in chief Rex Bossert explains the arguments being considered by the courts, what they mean for Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot next year, and what to watch for at both the state and federal levels. Read more
[link removed]
News
Andrew Garber on efforts to discredit interstate voter data cooperative ERIC // ROLLING STONE
[link removed]
Elizabeth Goitein on the impact of government surveillance on communities of color // MOTHER JONES
[link removed]
Michael Li on Georgia’s new congressional map // NBC
[link removed]
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at
[email protected]
mailto:
[email protected]
[link removed]
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
tel:646-292-8310
[email protected]
mailto:
[email protected]
Support Brennan Center
[link removed]
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here
[link removed]
to update your preferences.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
