American constitution society responds
"Today, the conservative-captured Roberts Court made law what former President Nixon once infamously asserted – that when a President commits what would otherwise be a criminal act, it is not illegal. It is an assertion that was met at the time with horror and disgust and today’s decision is worthy of the same response. It defies reason that our courts cannot hold accountable Presidents, with the vast power that they wield, for their criminal abuse of that power. And yet, that is the conclusion that the Court’s reasoning would reach.
Analysis of the Court’s decision should also put Trump v. United States in the context of recent history to appreciate the extent to which the Court is fundamentally restructuring our government and society to suit its ideological preferences. In decisions like Trump, Loper Bright, Corner Post, Biden v. Nebraska, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court has asserted that while the President can break the law with a type of immunity typically only enjoyed by kings and autocrats, the regulations his or her agencies promulgate can be overridden by an all-powerful Court who simply disagrees with the policies advanced, and Congress has little say on either account. This is not what the Constitution demands."
"Today, the conservative-captured Roberts Court made law what former President Nixon once infamously asserted – that when a President commits what would otherwise be a criminal act, it is not illegal. It is an assertion that was met at the time with horror and disgust and today’s decision is worthy of the same response. It defies reason that our courts cannot hold accountable Presidents, with the vast power that they wield, for their criminal abuse of that power. And yet, that is the conclusion that the Court’s reasoning would reach.
Analysis of the Court’s decision should also put Trump v. United States in the context of recent history to appreciate the extent to which the Court is fundamentally restructuring our government and society to suit its ideological preferences. In decisions like Trump, Loper Bright, Corner Post, Biden v. Nebraska, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court has asserted that while the President can break the law with a type of immunity typically only enjoyed by kings and autocrats, the regulations his or her agencies promulgate can be overridden by an all-powerful Court who simply disagrees with the policies advanced, and Congress has little say on either account. This is not what the Constitution demands."