After SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling, Trump wields it broadly in push for power
After SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling, Trump wields it broadly in push for power
DEVIN DWYERTue, April 7, 2026 at 9:13 AM UTC
0
Nearly two years after the Supreme Court's monumental 2024 decision granting President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from prosecution, the ruling's broader impact on American government is beginning to come into focus as Trump and his lawyers repeatedly invoke the case in an effort to get the justices to endorse expansive presidential power.
"That's not a coincidence, it's a strategy," said James Sample, a constitutional scholar at Hofstra Law and ABC News legal contributor. "They're not just invoking a precedent, they're building an architecture."
An ABC News review of the unprecedented 29 Trump emergency applications to the Supreme Court in his second term found that nearly a third directly cited Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in the immunity case, Trump v. U.S.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images - PHOTO: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attends President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the Capitol, Feb. 24, 2026.
Trump attorneys reference portions of the court's immunity decision at least 21 times to argue for "unrestricted" presidential power to fire executive branch employees; unreviewable control over "matters related to terrorism, trade and immigration;" and absolute authority as commander-in-chief to deploy troops to aid domestic law enforcement.
The Constitution "creates an 'energetic, independent executive,' not a subservient executive," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote the court, quoting Roberts, in a September request to allow Trump to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook.
"These aren't random citations," Sample said. "The White House Counsel's Office has read that opinion very carefully, and they are using it methodically."
The court is still crafting a decision in the Cook case but has generally embraced the administration's broad view of presidential authority to remove federal employees and supervise agencies.
Since January 2025, however, the justices have not referenced Trump v. U.S. to justify any of its decisions in favor of the Trump administration, leading some court analysts to question why the conservative majority has avoided explicitly invoking its own precedent.
"We just don't know yet what this case means, and it will be up to a future Supreme Court to define it," said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor and ABC News legal contributor.
Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images - PHOTO: Justices of the Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court, Oct. 7, 2022.
On several occasions, Trump appeals relying on the immunity decision have been rejected.
The court declined to embrace Trump administration claims in April 2025 that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was interwoven with the president's "important foreign relations responsibilities," which Roberts had indicated in the immunity decision were off limits for judicial review.
A majority of justices also rejected Trump's argument that a lower court block on his National Guard deployment in Chicago infringed on core constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, which were detailed in Roberts' opinion in the immunity case.
"They have been making a more powerful president -- with more complete control over the executive branch and its employees," said Isgur of the high court's conservative majority, "but also a weaker presidency that has to go back to Congress if it wants to move the law in any meaningful way."
Advertisement
Some legal scholars note the Trump v. U.S. decision also broke new ground by putting in writing the idea that the president has exclusive authority to enforce federal law and unchecked prosecutorial discretion -- an endorsement that some say has had at the very least a psychological impact on the president and his team.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP - PHOTO: President Donald Trump speaks at the Future Investment Initiative Institute's summit, March 27, 2026, in Miami Beach, Fla.
Roberts' opinion enshrines the idea that "investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function" and that the president has "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute."
"The Justice Department will likely use [the ruling's] discussion of the exclusive power over prosecution and investigation to push the bounds of this discretion," wrote Harvard Law professor and former assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration Jack Goldsmith in a recent law review article.
Trump has asserted himself as the nation's top law enforcer in his second term, personally directing the attorney general and other top officials on whom to investigate and whom to prosecute.
Trump has pushed indictments of many of his perceived opponents, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Sen. Adam Schiff, and former special counsel Jack Smith.
When six Democratic members of Congress posted a video telling military service members that they had the right not to carry out unlawful orders, Trump said the "traitors" should be "arrested and put on trial." Efforts to secure an indictment subsequently failed.
The Supreme Court's opinion in the Trump immunity case explicitly enshrines the president's right to active involvement in the cases and others like them.
MORE: Since Trump's return to office, here's a list of those targeted by his administration
"The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with the Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" Roberts wrote, quoting Article II of the Constitution. Later, Roberts adds on behalf of the court, a president has "exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials, and the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority."
"Those quotes are also just true as a matter of the Constitution," Isgur said. "That's what a president is supposed to do. What's new is using criminal prosecutors for partisan purposes -- and there's no quotes about that in the case."
Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters - PHOTO: Spring flowers bloom outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, March 30, 2026.
A majority of Americans, 55%, believe Trump is using the Justice Department to file unjustified criminal charges against his opponents, according to a November 2025 Marquette Law School poll; 45% think the charges have been justified.
At the same time, most Americans -- 56% -- disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, compared with 44% who approve, the Marquette poll found.
"The Court has traditionally proceeded cautiously and carefully when marking out exclusive presidential power because the president is known to run hard when the Court recognizes such power. But it did the opposite in Trump v U.S.," Goldsmith argues.
"The Court issued an incautious and overly broad ruling on exclusive presidential powers that presidents will use to their advantage against the other branches," Goldsmith wrote, "until the Court, in more considered reflection, acknowledges its imprudence and alters course."
Source: “AOL Breaking”
