United States V. Trump: Immunity Is Earned Not Simply Given.

In August 2023, former U.S. President Donald Trump was indicted for four counts following the November 2020 election and the Capitol attack January 6 2021. The indictment made claims of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. He did this by spreading obviously false claims of election fraud in an attempt to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump responded by holding up his presidential immunity as grounds to dismiss the case, claiming that “he [could not] be prosecuted for his official acts as president and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he [had] first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate” (Oyez). In a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was declared that as a former president, Trump was indeed entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. The ruling added that there was presumptive immunity for all other "official acts" taken while in office and no immunity for purely unofficial, personal acts.

The central legal issue involving United States v. Trump is the question of presidential immunity. Notably, Justice Sonya Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that such a broad level of immunity from criminal charges “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law” (Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), 2024). The major outrage was the fact that Trump was getting off scott-free despite his clear involvement in the January 6th events. In his rally speech on January 6th, Trump insisted that he and his supporters never give up and concede when there’s “theft” involved. The theft inquisition was his apparent win in the 2020 election. As his audience exclaimed “Fight for Trump”(AP News, 2021), the former president thanked them for support rather than attempting to mediate the situation. This is all to say that immunity for his actions is blatant ignorance of the constitution, ignoring his illegal acts as unconstitutional and giving him a loophole to abuse his power a former United States President.

Trump v. United States reveals a double standard in the American criminal justice system: it establishes that a former president effectively operates under a shield of immunity, while everyday citizens remain subject to the standard principles of statutory accountability. The decision of the case leaves room for people in positions of power to twist the constitution into whatever they want. This is the consequence of technicalities where politicians like former president Donald Trump can avoid the law without necessarily breaking it. Instead of the foundational legal concept that "no person is above the law," the ruling creates a framework where criminal liability depends on the nature of the action. Whether through a case of absolute immunity or presumptive immunity, Trump is still immune to crimes that would land ordinary individuals incarcerated or indebted by a hefty fine. A survey-based article asking, “Should Former Presidents Be Generally Immune to Prosecution for Official Acts Made in Office?”, notes that those who answer “no” typically argue that “allowing this policy could lead to presidents freely taking illegal action without fear of prosecution later. They argue that if partisanship prevents the impeachment and removal from office of a president, the court system must have the ability to hold men and women accountable after their term is finished.” To this point, all citizens who want full justice without bias in spite of position should be in agreement.

Justice needs to be maintained. There can no longer be an invisible line between members of the public and members of government. Immunity should be removed for certain offences. This would apply in the case of a current president, even if the president is still in office. The supreme court should refer to precedents where average members of the public are indicted for the same crimes. In this, they apply the doctrine of stare decisis where courts adhere to previous rulings in new cases. This will promote fairness across cases and predictability despite levels of power. With this change, there will be justice and efficiency. Trump should not have gotten special treatment. With this proposed solution, he nor anyone else like him will get it again.  

References

AP News. (2021, January 13). Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27

Oyez. (2024). Trump v. United States. Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

Should Former Presidents Be Generally Immune to Prosecution for Official Acts Made in Office? | National Leader in Civic Education Resources | Bill of Rights Institute. (2026, April 9). National Leader in Civic Education Resources | Bill of Rights Institute. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/ttv/debates/should-former-presidents-be-generally-immune-to-prosecution-for-official-acts-made-in-office/

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). (2024). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-939/#tab-opinion-4913922