“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. … The majority…in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. … Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. … The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.”
These are the words of Justice Sotomayor in her dissent in the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States. The Justice’s extraordinary close eschewed the reference to the word “respect” that traditionally concludes other SCOTUS dissents and instead stated, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” After this Supreme Court term, our democracy feels like homes hanging off the edge of an oceanside cliff that has been eaten away by erosion.
Last week, SCOTUS wiped out decades of precedent that will hinder the ability of government agencies to protect public health and the environment. The Court overruled its own 1984 case that essentially required courts to defer to the expertise of government agencies when reviewing regulations that protect workers, consumers, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the safety of our food. Instead, judges who lack subject matter expertise can now substitute their own judgment for the scientific research underpinning a regulation when interpreting federal law.
The extreme partisanship of this Court’s majority continues to be emboldened and unrestrained by a feckless Chief Justice. Not only did Justice Thomas fail to recuse himself in the presidential immunity case – where his conflict was clear – but he further thumbed his nose at decency and ethics by writing his own concurrence making clear he would have gone even further, arguing that the Attorney General may have violated the Constitution by its appointment of the Special Counsel.
Project 2025 is the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto that details how government will be dismantled under a presidency that shares its extreme agenda. It issues a dire warning that supports why Justice Thomas’s dissent and the words of Justice Sotomayor presage a chilling future. Foreshadowing a government above the law, Project 2025 states that the “next conservative President” must not be deterred by dissent, “Their outrage cannot be prevented; it must simply be ignored. And it can be.”
This Supreme Court, combined with Project 2025’s vision for the future, demonstrate how an extremist agenda is dangerous not only for democracy and the rule of law, but for our very quality of life.
The choice is now ours. Will we allow outrage to be ignored? Or will we join together to create a different outcome, one that protects what still remains and builds back a safer future for our children and grandchildren?
LDAD will continue to stand for the future that upholds our core values and principles. We hope you will join that effort.
Thank you for your support and for your dedication to maintaining our democracy.
Sincerely,
Lawyers Defending American Democracy
