On Monday, six members of the Supreme Court granted Donald Trump — and every future president — broad criminal immunity. The court found that, as president, Trump was free to use his “official” powers to commit crimes. Considering the President of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, this is a breathtaking pronouncement.
Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor details the implications:
When [the President of the United States] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done,” she continued. “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the conservative majority’s Trump immunity ruling went too far. Business insider
5 Alarm Fire: The highest standard level, a five-alarm fire, is a critical event that requires a massive response, potentially involving nearly all available departmental resources and mutual aid from neighboring areas. Fire alarm
I’ve been going over Chief Justice John Roberts’s presidential immunity decision, trying to understand the distinction it sets out between “official” acts of a president, which are immune from prosecution, and “unofficial” acts, which are not immune. And I wanted to share with you a particularly troubling aspect.
Since Nixon, the Justice Department has been careful to keep the president and the White House strictly out of decisions over whom to prosecute. But Roberts’s language would immunize Trump from criminal prosecution, were he to become president again and seek to use the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies — exactly what dictators do.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “The Republican appointed-majority in this opinion has … opened the door to a President exercising wide dictatorial powers without any ultimate legal accountability for his actions.” ; Robert Reich
Grade Level: High School (Grades 11-12) / College
Subject: Government, Civics, Law
Lesson Objectives:
- Analyze the Supreme Court’s decision regarding presidential immunity and its constitutional implications.
- Evaluate the impact of this ruling on the balance of powers and democratic principles.
- Develop critical thinking skills by examining multiple perspectives on executive power.
- Analyze Constitutional Implications: Students will analyze how this decision impacts constitutional principles and the balance of power.
- Debate Democratic Principles: Students will discuss the implications for democracy and the rule of law.
Materials:
- Article: “A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy”
- Fearmongering? – Robert Reich
- Definition of A Five-Alarm Fire
Lesson Outline:
Introduction
1. Thought Starter: Present the quote, “No one is above the law.” Ask students to consider what this means in the context of government officials.
Activity 1: Article Discussion
- Read and Summarize: Distribute the article excerpts. Students read key sections in groups and summarize the main points.
- Group Discussion: Discuss the summary, focusing on the reasoning behind the decision and the dissenting opinions of Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
Activity 2: Constitutional Analysis
- Textual Evidence: Provide excerpts from the Constitution and Federalist No. 69.
- Group Analysis: Students compare these texts with the Supreme Court’s decision in groups and discuss whether the ruling aligns with constitutional intentions.
Activity 3: Debate (30 minutes)
- Debate Setup: Divide the class into two groups—one defending the decision, the other opposing it.
- Structured Debate: Each side presents arguments using evidence from the article, the Constitution, and historical documents.
Conclusion and Reflection (15 minutes)
- Debrief: Discuss the debate outcomes and reflect on how this ruling might affect future presidential actions and democratic governance.
- Exit Ticket: Students write a brief reflection on what they learned about the relationship between law and executive power.
Homework:
- Extended Reading: Assign additional readings on related Supreme Court cases or historical instances of executive overreach.
- Essay: Write an essay arguing for or against the Supreme Court’s decision, using evidence from class discussions and readings.
Assessment:
- Written analysis comparing historical documents to the current ruling
- Exit ticket: Students identify three key takeaways from the lesson
Extended Learning:
- Research Paper: Analyze a historical case of executive power controversy
- and its resolution
- Media Analysis: Compare coverage of the ruling across different news sources
