A Supreme Court Justice Gave Us Alarming New Evidence That He’s Living in MAGA World

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Trump v. United States, a challenge to special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for election subversion related to Jan. 6. The former president argues that he has absolute “presidential immunity” for the “official acts” he undertook while attempting to overturn the election, rendering the prosecution against him largely unconstitutional. Despite the total lack of any known constitutional basis for this theory, the Supreme Court’s conservatives received it favorably, suggesting that they will further delay and undermine Trump’s eventual federal trial.

On this week’s episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick spoke about the arguments with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan, who previously served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity. To listen to the full episode , join Slate Plus.

Dahlia Lithwick: Justice Alito trotted out this theme that was kind of bone-chilling: He said “we all want” a “stable democratic society,” and nothing could be worse for democracy than holding a president to account, because that will “lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.” As if democracy requires giving immunity to criminal presidents because otherwise they won’t leave office. This was when I went through the looking glass—it literally felt like “don’t make me hit you again” democracy.

Pam Karlan: That was the moment where I felt like saying, “That’s what just happened!” This is not something that might happen in the future. It’s what already happened! And if you let people get away with it, what you’ve said to Donald Trump is, “If you win the 2024 election, don’t bother leaving office in 2029—just stay there.” I mean, that’s really what the Supreme Court would be saying: There’s not going to be any crime if you try to stay there. It wasn’t just through the looking glass. I thought, Did you hear what just came out of your mouth?

Mark Joseph Stern: This was a great example of Alito being fully brain-poisoned by Fox News. This is been happening for years; he used to ask famously great questions, but these days it’s just culture war grievances and stuff that falls apart upon even a little bit of scrutiny. He’s losing his edge. And that was clear in this bizarro question saying that actually, a functioning constitutional democracy requires us to let presidents off the hook when they engage in a criminal conspiracy to steal elections.

But it was also clear during his next round of questions with Michael Dreeben, who represented Jack Smith. Alito had Dreeben walk through the layers that protect a president from a frivolous or vindictive prosecution. Then he dismissed each one out of hand. So Dreeben said: First, you need a prosecutor who’s willing to bring charges; then you need a grand jury to indict; then there’s a criminal proceeding in open court where a jury of his peers decides whether he’s been proved guilty. And Alito just laughs it off as though it’s a big joke. Because we all know Justice Department attorneys are hacks who’ll do whatever they want, right? And a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich—nobody believes a grand jury will do anything worthwhile. And then, oh, sure a jury of his peers, like that’s going to do anything.

This is the justice who is, by far, the most friendly to prosecutors and hostile to criminal defendants in case after case. Who could not for the life of him find a violation of the right to trial by jury or due process. But when the defendant is Trump, he suddenly thinks this entire system of criminal prosecution is such a bad joke that the Supreme Court has to step in and essentially quash this prosecution, because we can’t trust the system to work. The system that is incarcerating so many other people whose convictions Sam Alito just rubber-stamps.

I felt like that was the turn for me—it was Alito winking to Dreeben, saying, in short, “We both worked in the Justice Department; we know what a racket that crap is.” This was another one of those moments when I thought, sorry: Did one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court just imply that everything that happens at the Justice Department is hackery and rigged prosecutions?

Karlan: There was shock to it, but notice what’s underneath all of that. Which is Alito saying we’re worried about vindictive prosecutions and we haven’t seen any of this up until now, that no president has prosecuted the president who came after. For all of what Alito was saying to be true, he has to believe that this prosecution itself is vindictive. Which means he has to have bought Trump’s narrative of the case. And when he does this with Dreeben, he’s attacking the deep state, which is career-line prosecutors. Remember, Dreeben’s entire career has been as a nonpartisan civil servant who’s gotten up there and argued cases on behalf of the Bush administration, on behalf of the Trump administration, on behalf of the Obama administration.

I mean, what Alito did is essentially say: “I’m living in MAGA world.” Which views this case as a totally bogus prosecution ginned up by totally bogus people as part of a vindictive prosecution by Joe Biden. And Alito is also implicitly saying that if Donald Trump gets reelected, you just know he’s going to prosecute people vindictively too. He really has lost faith in the entire system. Or at least he’s prepared to lose faith in the system enough to decide this case in Trump’s favor.

Beyond Alito, this was certainly not the Roberts court that I expected to show up at this argument. As a blinkered institutionalist, I’m getting blowback along the lines of: “I told you so. They’re a bunch of partisan hacks.” I truly believed that at least seven members of the court would take the potential failure of democracy as a proposition seriously enough that the partisan valence of this case went away. That didn’t happen.

Karlan: Part of what’s shocking about this is juxtaposing the case with Trump v. Anderson, from earlier this term. Anderson involved whether Colorado could keep Trump off the primary ballot for having engaged in insurrection, which under Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment disqualifies you from holding an additional office. Coming out of that argument, the court fairly swiftly reached a unanimous bottom line that they were going to keep him on the ballot, because that’s what democracy requires—to let the people decide. At the time I kind of thought, well, maybe they have some grand bargain here, which is to keep Trump on the ballot but say he’s not immune from prosecution for engaging in crimes that undermine the very democracy that you just said you’re so committed to protecting.

Instead we got nothing about protecting democracy. Certainly nothing about letting the people decide, which is the way you prove crimes. You take them to a jury, and the jury decides whether somebody’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “Democracy for me but not for thee” is kind of where the Supreme Court seems to be ending up. Maybe they’ll surprise us, and they were just letting off some steam. But where the argument seemed to go was that all of the things they said in Trump v. Anderson played no role and had no weight on how they’re going to decide Trump v. United States.

Right. Anderson was “screw originalism; democracy demands more.” And this was just “screw democracy.”