On July 1, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Trump v. United States, conferring absolute immunity to the President of the United States for any criminal acts committed in an official capacity. The Harvard Black Law Students’ Association expresses its deep concern about the ramifications of this holding, which Justice Sotomayor described as making “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
The decision concludes a controversial term for the court, rife with troubling legal implications for marginalized communities nationwide. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Court issued “yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to tackle emerging problems like climate change,” potentially leaving millions of underprivileged Americans vulnerable to acute conditions. In the realm of voting rights, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP allows racist lawmakers to “cloak attempts at suppressing Black voters under the guise of partisanship.” Another case, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, narrows the legal toolkit of homelessness advocates seeking to protect the unhoused from criminalization. In light of the presidential immunity ruling, City of Grant Pass carries the added sting of contrasting the punitive treatment applied to the poor with the remarkable grace afforded those who openly attacked the American political system.
Despite continued fears of rampant gun violence and hate crimes at scale, the Court also struck down regulations prohibiting augmentation of handguns to increase their lethal capacity in Garland v. Cargill. For Black Americans, this has two distinct harms: it exposes the Black community to more potential anti-Black terrorism and increases the likelihood of their incarceration for gun charges (between 2019 and 2023, 58.8% of people sentenced under federal firearms statute, 922(g) were Black) by dismantling preventive policies.
As the organization representing Harvard’s Black lawyers of tomorrow, HBLSA recognizes the unique danger of rewarding explicitly racist assaults on the rule of law and electoral process with complete insulation from criminal prosecution. Historical failures by the Supreme Court to punish bigoted lawlessness in cases such as US v. Cruikshank (1876) and The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were soon followed by even bolder manifestations of violence such as the expulsion of Black people from Comanche County in 1886 and the overthrow of the government of Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898. Today’s dereliction of constitutional responsibility may very well become tomorrow’s atrocity.
While such a prediction may appear alarmist, we need look no further than Justice Sotomayor’s dissent to demonstrate the realities of the Court’s ruling. She noted that as a matter of law, the president is now criminally immune for taking reprehensible actions such as taking “a bribe in exchange for a pardon,” ordering “the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” or even organizing “a military coup to hold onto power.” Commentators have already raised concerns that the decision is a “blueprint for dictatorship” and may serve as a signal to embolden the former president to engage in a campaign of vengeance against discrete classes of Americans.
Many have linked the Republican nominee to Project 2025, a blueprint to radically reshape the federal government by dismissing “as many as 50,000 federal employees,” shuttering cabinet departments (page 79 of handbook), and abolishing diversity, equity and inclusion programs (throughout document, example on page 103-04). The plan also includes a stated intent to execute all 40 federal inmates currently on death row. In addition to the handbook, the candidate expressed a desire to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and prioritize “anti-white racism” over addressing anti-Blackness.
Our nation finds itself in the midst of what may be its most contentious election season in history. Wars rage abroad in Congo, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine. For the last several months, campuses across the United States have called on its leaders to chart a path of safety for all. Every decision made by those tasked with navigating this period will have enormous consequences in the coming years. We believe that this slate of decisions, punctuated by this final grant of presidential immunity, jeopardizes the stability of the country at large; we believe that it violates the concept of equality under the law; we believe that it has potential to significantly harm our most vulnerable citizens; and we believe that it endangers Black people across America.
In times such as these, it is natural to feel an inclination towards despair. The realm of possibilities now include some fearsome and upsetting futures. But societies in much worse circumstances than this have returned from the brink of despotism to unthinkable heights. As long as there are decent people with a commitment to justice anywhere, there is hope that a better tomorrow is possible. Across American law schools are law students and professors with such commitments; across BLSAs in this country are innovative young minds with solutions not yet imagined for problems not yet understood. So long as this is true, we can overcome whatever troubles are ahead.
Editor’s Note: While the former president issued a statement distancing himself from Project 2025 last Friday, it should be noted that the Project is spearheaded by Paul Dans, chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the former president. Additionally, other members of his team, such as spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, have also been featured by the Project.