The Supreme Court Is Not Pro-Trump | Opinion

Many observers argue that the Supreme Court, now comprising three appointees of Donald Trump, is actively aiding him in undermining American democracy. This perspective gained traction following a recent ruling that granted Trump immunity from prosecution for "official acts" performed during his presidency.

Adam Serwer of The Atlantic warned that the justices perceived as pro-Trump have effectively granted Trump "permission for a despotic second term." Princeton historian Sean Wilentz likened the ruling to the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which supported slavery, claiming that it endows the presidency with "quasi-monarchical powers" and sets the stage for a MAGA-inspired authoritarianism. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) labeled the immunity decision "an assault on American democracy," asserting that it is Congress's duty to protect the nation from this perceived authoritarian encroachment.

However, the notion of a "pro-Trump" Supreme Court seems inconsistent with the Court’s broader rulings.

Consider, for example, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Trump failed to secure the necessary four votes to even have his claims considered, which solidified Joe Biden's victory. This decision starkly contrasts the narrative that the Court is aiding Trump’s efforts to destabilize American democracy.

Furthermore, the Court previously compelled Trump to release his tax returns to a New York prosecutor, thereby facilitating a local prosecutor’s pursuit of potential criminal charges against him while he was in office. Rather than enabling Trump’s despotic ambitions, this ruling allowed legal scrutiny of the sitting president.

Another notable case in 2022 saw the Court’s eight-justice majority reject Trump’s arguments and grant the congressional January 6 committee access to his presidential records. This ruling aided the committee in assembling the evidence used by the Department of Justice in its prosecution of Trump. 

Were these decisions aligned with Trump’s interests?

The Court has also ruled against Trump in significant policy matters. It rejected his attempts to dismantle DACA, curb LGBTQ rights, overturn Obamacare, and introduce a citizenship question on the census. These rulings also appear at odds with the claim that the Court is pro-Trump.

Admittedly, the Court has occasionally ruled in Trump’s favor, such as when it decided that he could not be removed from Colorado's presidential ballot and when it upheld his immunity from prosecution for "official acts" performed in office. But do these decisions indicate a pro-Trump bias?

The ruling regarding Colorado’s ballot was unanimous, with all nine justices agreeing that a single local election official could not remove a presidential candidate from the ballot. Such a ruling prevented a potentially chaotic precedent affecting election processes nationwide.

In the immunity case, the Court did not grant Trump absolute immunity, but instead ruled that presidents are protected from prosecution for their "official acts" while in office. This ruling safeguards all presidents, including Joe Biden, from excessive legal challenges after their term ends. Allowing individual prosecutors to decide whether to prosecute former presidents would be an impractical and potentially disruptive approach.

Thus, while the Court’s decisions occasionally benefit Trump, they reflect a broader judicial focus on setting precedents applicable to all future presidents, rather than serving Trump’s personal interests.

This does not mean the reconstituted Court is infallible or immune to criticism. It has made significant missteps, such as its rapid and controversial overturning of Roe v. Wade and its invalidation of New York's gun regulation amid a national gun violence crisis. The justices are not beyond partisanship, overreach, or error. Yet, the idea that they are systematically rewriting the Constitution to facilitate Trump’s agenda is fundamentally flawed.

The Court’s role is to establish precedents that will govern the conduct of future presidents, rather than to cater to the interests of any one individual. The assertion that the Court is pro-Trump is not supported by the facts and reveals an ironic misfocus by its critics, who seem overly fixated on Trump rather than on the Court’s broader function.