UK election law analyst and author of The Court vs. the Voters Joshua Douglas says the Monday ruling on immunity – bolstering presidential power by granting complete immunity to "official acts" and raising the bar for prosecution regarding acts on the perimeter of that definition – runs counter to the philosophy of judicial restraint espoused by many judges on the bench.
"The court is in many ways attacking the lots of different institutions of government and once again giving itself more power," Douglas tells WUKY. "Unfortunately, we're seeing a court that does not seem to think about limited the limited role of judiciary. The majority here very often tries to pretend that it is adhering to judicial restraint, but then you see what it's doing and it's giving itself more power to decide these cases."
In this particular election, Douglas says that leaves voters less informed.
"This decision deprives voters of the knowledge they need. Is Trump guilty of committing these crimes or not? The voters won't have a chance to learn that before they go to the polls," he notes.
When it comes to voting rights, Douglas’s bailiwick, the ultimate message in the case, he says, is that “the court has the most power.”
"In a case from last week, the court overturned a 40-year precedent about deference given to administrative agencies," he says. "I think you see the court over and over again, giving the justices themselves more power at the expense of other governmental actors, and ultimately at the expense of the people in some ways as well."
The immunity case marked the first time the court has ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, all but ruling out a trial before the November election. The justices returned the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over a trial. She must now sort out what is left of special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president.
