Pro-Democracy Alliance Says Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Ruling Must Not Stand

Dozens of civil society groups on Monday told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that congressional action is "imperative" to ensure the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States does not stand, warning that the court's ruling on presidential immunity in July "poses a significant threat to our democracy."

In deciding that a U.S. president has "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while in office, said the groups, the court "effectively [provided] the president with sweeping legal immunity for criminal acts" two-and-a-half years after former President Donald Trump urged his supporters to block the 2020 election results from being certified with a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

"The idea that a president should be granted constitutional protection from prosecution for otherwise criminal 'official acts' is an affront to the fundamental principle of American democracy that no one is above the law," reads the letter sent to the committee by groups including Public Citizen, Accountable.US, and Free Speech for People.

The organizations asked the committee to enter the letter into the official record ahead of a hearing on the Trump v. United States ruling, which is set for Tuesday.

The signatories quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent to the ruling, in which she listed scenarios in which a president could now be immune from prosecution following the 6-3 decision.

"The idea that a president should be granted constitutional protection from prosecution for otherwise criminal 'official acts' is an affront to the fundamental principle of American democracy that no one is above the law."

"Under the ruling, if the president '[o]rders 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,'" wrote the groups.

Jonah Minkoff-Zern, co-director of Public Citizen's Democracy Campaign, emphasized that even without hypotheticals, the harm done by Trump v. United States is clear.

"The language in Trump v. United States suggests the president, in theory, could do whatever they want, whenever they want, without facing accountability under criminal law, so long as they could claim to be carrying out 'official acts,'" said Minkoff-Zern. "The ramifications of this ruling are not abstract, especially following the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This decision impacts everyone, because the actions of the president of the United States affect all of us. It's telling that so many different organizations have signed onto this letter."

The ruling sent a case regarding Trump's alleged attempts to conspire to obstruct an official proceeding on January 6 back to a lower court, ensuring that he won't face trial for charges against him before the November election, in which the Republican is running against Vice President Kamala Harris.

The groups pointed to a number of congressional actions that could be taken to "address the harms" of the ruling, including the passage of:

• Rep. Joe Morelle's (D-N.Y.) "Not Above the Law" constitutional amendment, which would reverse the decision;
• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) No Kings Act, which would establish that president and vice presidents don't have immunity from prosecution for criminal acts, and
• Sen. Mazie Hirono's (D-Hawaii) amendment to "clarify that Presidents and other federal officeholders are, in fact, accountable to the law for their actions."

"Our country elects our leaders through a democratic process," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert, "and those duly elected leaders, including the president of the United States, must follow the law, not stand above it."