Rulings by the Supreme Court are binding on the other branches, Congress and the Executive, placing it above them. Its decisions cannot be appealed except to the court itself.

Its most anticipated ruling released July 1 involved former President Donald Trump and the powers of the presidency. The Court decided that the president can do whatever he wants in his “official acts.” (What is official is not explained. Trump asserts they are whatever he says they are.) Opponents of the decision argue the president can now act like a King or dictator.

This decision is the culmination of, and legal affirmation of, the increase of presidential power since the 1950s. Just one example is the fact that while the Constitution states only Congress can declare war, the last time it has done so was for the Second World War. All the wars involving its troops the U.S. has waged since, from Korea up through Afghanistan and Iraq, have been waged by the president.

Such a blatant power grab, to give not only Trump immunity for what he did as president, but also Biden as long as he is in office, and all future presidents, had never been issued before by the Supreme Court in its 225-year history. In fact, in the 1970s the Court and Congress implicitly rejected the “imperial presidency” in the case of former President Richard Nixon, who was caught in committing a crime to further his political aims in what became known as the “Watergate scandal” in the early 1970s. In his defense he asserted whatever the president says or does is protected by the Constitution, which the Court at the time rejected.

Trump made the same argument Nixon raised at both federal and state trials that are currently taking place. He says those trials violated his Constitutional powers.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by the court’s five other rightist justices, while the three liberal justices dissented.

The Supreme Court did not say Trump has complete immunity:

“Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, adding, “The text of the [Impeachment Clause] provides little support for such an absolute immunity.”

Impeachment and conviction, which is done by Congress, however, rarely happens and does not mean criminal conviction, so this “remedy” means little.

The Court remanded the issue back down to the lower courts, which will now have to determine whether Trump’s actions constituted “official acts”.

The ruling means Trump’s cases before federal court will not be settled before the November presidential election. It means if a lower court rules against Trump, or a future president, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if these convictions were “official acts” that have immunity.

 Response by liberal Court minority

“Today’s decision to grant former President’s criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.

“The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under- standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them,” Sotomayor said.

The Justice Department has brought four charges against Trump concerning the 2020 elections: Conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights, specifically “the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”

Trump and his lawyers argued that former presidents must have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for acts they commit while in office.

What it means is the upcoming presidential election will be between two highly questionable candidates.

Trump is a consummate liar and Biden appears more fragile than his age. At the first debate in June, Trump who is only three years younger than Biden seemed more lively and able.

Biden by his own admission almost fell asleep in the 90 minute so called debate. He stumbled over words while softly mumbling, was often off point and had the appearance of senility.

The Democratic Party establishment is so concerned they are debating whether there should be a replacement at the Democratic Party convention in mid-August in Chicago, but only if Biden voluntarily steps down, which he so far refuses to do.

Of course, it really does not matter much for the ruling class whichever party (Democrats or Republicans) wins. The country’s rulers have always had a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” that only represents the interest of big capital.

The term “democracy” in and of itself has little meaning in U.S. capitalist politics. Biden and Trump both will advance the interests of US imperialism abroad (Genocide in Gaza, NATO expansion for example) and concerning women and minority rights, etc. at home, with only tactical differences.

Democrats like to talk about “democracy” even though the Constitution says nothing about the people directly concerning the vote for president. The Electoral College formed by delegates appointed by each state’s legislature decides the presidency, not the popular vote.

The Founding Fathers made sure that the people, workers and farmers, did not have the final say. It created the unelected Supreme Court, whose members are chosen for life. The power to overrule the laws written by Congress and signed by the president was articulated by the fourth Chief Justice John Margalla in an 1803 ruling. He said, “the law is what the Supreme Court says it is.” It set the standard ever since.

 Other main or significant rulings

There were several other significant rulings.

Overturned Chevron precedent

Another main decision of note was that the Court overturned one of its own most important precedents, the Chevron doctrine, that for the past 40 years has guided the work of the federal government in critical areas of public life, from food and drug safety to environmental protection.

The Biden administration warned that overturning the Chevron doctrine would have a “convulsive” impact on the functioning of government. The Court’s hardline rightist majority voted as a block to throw out the Supreme Court’s own 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision required the courts to defer to the knowledge of government experts in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. It has long been a target of the conservative legal movement.

Use of Obstruction laws

A decision to narrow use of obstruction laws could affect prosecutions of the convicted January 6 rioters. The court narrowed the statute that prosecutors have relied on in the cases of hundreds of rioters who took part in the January 6 Capitol attack for obstruction of an official proceeding – a ruling with implications for participants on that day in 2021.

The 6-3 ruling could affect the federal criminal case against Trump, who is charged with similar offences in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the assault. The decision stems from the conviction of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, who took part in Trump’s so-called “stop the steal” rally on the morning of January 6 before then entering the Capitol with the pro- Trump mob.

Although many liberals assailed this ruling, it is a step forward. While the Court’s aim was to support Trump, it may have a broader effect. Many protests, from the mass civil disobedience actions led by Martin Luther King to workers picket lines and strikes themselves, to Black Lives Matter protests, and more recently the campus protests of Israel’s war on Gaza have “obstructed” business as usual and many were so charged. Using laws that restrict the civil rights of rightists has always resulted in their greater use against working people and their allies more often.

The Court’s decision can be used in defense of such protesters who are charged with obstruction, with the caveat that courts are often hypocritical and contradictory.

The real charges against the attackers on January 6 and Trump himself for them should have been the attempt to stage a coup against the ratification of the results of the 2020 elections, but this was avoided by the powers that be.

Ruling on unhoused

The Court ruled that cities can criminalize unhoused people for sleeping outside, even when they lack access to shelter. The ruling is a victory for the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, which for years has prohibited sleeping and camping in its public parks and on its streets, banning unhoused people from “using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements.” The city’s policies call for $295 fines and criminal prosecution punishable by up to 30 days in jail after multiple offenses.

In the case of City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson, the Court ruled 6-3 that it is not “cruel and unusual punishment” under the eighth amendment to ban unhoused people from camping outside when they have nowhere else to go. The decision stands to broadly affect how cities approach homelessness and could lead to more cities and states passing laws to ticket, fine and jail people for living outside, marking a significant erosion of unhoused people’s rights, and avoiding the real issue of providing housing for all, which should be a right.

Emergency abortions upheld for now

The justices dismissed a case over whether emergency room doctors can perform abortions to save a woman’s health, returning the case to a lower court.

Idaho had sought to have abortion exempted from the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (Emtala), which requires hospitals that receive federal dollars to stabilize the health of patients who show up at their emergency rooms with medical emergencies. Although many states allow doctors to perform an emergency abortion when a woman’s life or health is at risk, in effect mirroring Emtala, Idaho only allowed doctors to intervene when a woman was on the brink of death, a much higher bar for intervention. The Biden administration sued Idaho to enforce the law.

The Court surprisingly allowed emergency abortions in Idaho for now. The majority can reverse that later once the case is returned from the lower court.

Court blocks EPA powers

The Court also blocked the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) attempt to reduce pollution that drifts across state lines.

The Court put a hold on an attempt by the EPA to reduce harmful air pollution that drifts across state lines. The ruling in sided with three states – Ohio, West Virginia, and Indiana – and industry allies seeking to derail so-called “good neighbor” regulations, which prevent pollution from billowing into neighboring states.

The program, first drawn up by the EPA in 2015, is designed to prevent “upwind” states from causing air pollution that flows to “downwind” neighbors. The primary target of the regulation is ground-level ozone, which forms smog that causes an array of health problems. The case will continue to play out in lower courts.

Strips Securities body’s ability to fight fraud

The court stripped the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a major tool in fighting securities fraud in a decision that could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.

The Justices ruled in a 6-3 vote that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court (which would cause years of delay). The in-house proceedings the SEC has used in some civil fraud complaints violate the Constitution, the court said.

Guns and abusers

Unexpectedly the Justices banned domestic abusers from possessing guns. It was found to be constitutional by an 8-1 vote.

The court struck down a federal ban on “bump stocks” the devices that can ramp up semiautomatic firearms to discharge ammunition almost as rapidly as machine guns and that have been behind some of the most devastating mass shootings in recent history.

Abortions pill saved for now

The availability of a common abortion pill will remain unchanged the Court ruled in a unanimous 9-0, handing a major victory to abortion-rights supporters who feared that the Court which just two years ago overturned the federal right to abortion, leaving it up to the individual states, would further hack away at access to the procedure.

The case dealt with the FDA’s ability to regulate mifepristone, one of two drugs typically used in medication abortions, which now make up more than 60% of all US abortions and have become a major target of anti-abortion groups. A coalition of abortion opponents had tried to persuade the Supreme Court to roll back a series of moves by the FDA to expand access to the drug, such as allowing abortion providers to mail mifepristone to patients.

Blow to voting rights

The court ruled that South Carolina Republicans who control the state’s legislature, do not need to redraw their congressional voting map that reduces the voting power of Black people, deciding that a lower court had not properly evaluated the evidence when it ruled that the lawmakers had discriminated against Black voters.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration. It also could give lawmakers more leeway to discriminate in redistricting and use partisanship as a proxy for race. That could be enormously powerful in the South, where voting is often racially polarized.

While many critics of the power of the Supreme Court focus on the 6-3 bloc, the norm has been the Court has ratified Black voter suppression for most of its existence.

The only significant exceptions occurred twice.

First, was the Civil War of 1861-65 that led to the destruction of the Confederacy and its slave -labor system. Black people were allowed to become legal citizens. What full citizenship meant lasted less than 20 years when the counter revolution to the Civil War led to the Jim Crow legal segregation system in the South that in reality meant Black people could not vote, that the Supreme Court upheld for nearly a century.

Second was the mass civil rights movement and revolution that began during the Second World War. It led to a presidential executive order in 1948 to desegregate the military. That victory was followed by the massive movement in the 1950s and 1960s that put the nail in the coffin in the legal segregation system. That system had been the cornerstone of Southern states and Democratic Party rule.

The Supreme Court responded to social upheaval by issuing, some argued inevitable, changes and interpretations of the Constitution affecting laws at home and abroad. The Soviet Union and its anti-capitalist ideology had hammered the lie of US democracy because of its treatment of Black people, and its support to white settler regimes and colonial powers in Africa.

The US ruling class had to respond to the mass actions at home and anti-colonial revolutions by changing its laws.

The changes in laws were won by mass struggle.

It’s striking that it was 80 years ago that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was adopted that ended Jim Crow, followed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other actions by the federal government in the context of the radicalization of the 1960s-70s. It included an administrative state that was based more on science than politicians. It set up 50 years ago the EPA, the OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration), and other regulatory bodies that the current Court seeks to roll back.

Against all the aspects of the ruling class drive to roll back what has been previously won, what must be done is to do what earlier generations did: organize, mobilize, and challenge the state whichever major party is in government.

Malik Mia and Barry Sheppard

---