In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court rejects the use of "lawfare" to prosecute political opponents and reinforces presidential immunity for official acts.
C.S. Lewis's Warning about Bureaucracy
In his 1959 preface to The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis wrote, “I like bats more than bureaucrats. I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’' He goes on to criticize bureaucracy, saying:
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
The validity of Lewis’s observation is evident in the "Deep State" (also called the Swamp). The Deep State’s war on former President Trump demonstrates the lengths to which the left will go to preserve their power. The most recent and aggressive effort by the Deep State involves using the judicial process to prosecute political opponents. This practice has given rise to the term “lawfare,” which refers to the use of civil and criminal courts by a politician or political party in power to prosecute their opponents. The foremost example of lawfare is the prosecution of former President Trump, coordinated through the Biden Justice Department.
Supreme Court's Decision in Trump v. United States
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States will limit the use of lawfare against President Trump and his supporters. It also sets a precedent to prevent future abuses of the judicial process.
In Trump v. United States, the Constitutional Coalition filed an amicus brief on behalf of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the lower court’s ruling that the President is not immune from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. We argued that the Constitution affords the President immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts—not because he is "above the law," but because this immunity is a critical feature of the Separation of Powers doctrine and essential for the President to fulfill his role as the nation’s chief executive, especially in matters of national security.
The Supreme Court agreed, and the majority struck down the lower court’s ruling that the President has no immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken during their tenure in office. This was a significant victory in defending a foundational principle upon which our nation is built. Several members of the Court referenced the historical precedent presented in the Ashcroft amicus brief.
However, there is more. In our amicus brief with former Attorney General Ashcroft, we also referenced a companion amicus brief filed by former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey. They argued that Jack Smith, whom Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed as "Special Counsel" to prosecute President Trump in the January 6 "insurrection" case in Washington, D.C., and the documents case in Florida, had no constitutional authority to do so. Unlike a United States attorney, the Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General, Jack Smith was not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As such, Smith had no more authority than a private citizen. And private citizens cannot bring a criminal prosecution against anyone, including a former President.
This argument was adopted by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion.
On July 15, federal judge Aileen Cannon, who was presiding over Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution of President Trump in the Florida documents case, dismissed Smith’s case against Trump for the precise reason Justice Thomas cited in his concurrence, which was the main argument made by Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey.
The Collapse of the Biden Administration’s Lawfare Strategy
The net effect of these cases and the successful appeals is that the Biden Administration’s lawfare strategy to defeat President Trump’s election campaign has crumbled.
To be clear, the amicus brief filed by The Constitutional Coalition with Attorney General Ashcroft was not a brief on behalf of President Trump. Instead, it was a brief defending the foundational constitutional principles and the Rule of Law upon which our nation was founded. This effort contributed to the Court’s decision upholding these principles and has helped deter the Progressive Left’s use of lawfare to prosecute their political opponents and maintain their power in the "Administrative State."
The Mission of the Constitutional Coalition
The Constitutional Coalition has undertaken this and other consequential initiatives and aims to educate citizens about the importance of the constitutional issues at hand. The Constitutional Coalition is nonpartisan and does not support or advocate for any political candidate or party.
Comments