How the Roberts Court Dismantled Accountability in One Term
In a single Supreme Court term spanning 2022-2024, six unelected justices fundamentally rewrote the balance of power in American government.
Three decisions stand out for their devastating impact on democratic accountability and the rule of law:
- Trump v. United States (July 2024): Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (June 2024): Federal agencies can no longer interpret ambiguous statutes—courts will instead
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (June 2022): Gun regulations must match 18th-century historical traditions, not modern public safety needs
Individually, each decision is radical. Together, they form a coordinated assault on government accountability, expertise, and the ability to protect public safety.
Presidents can commit crimes. Agencies can’t regulate effectively. States can’t protect citizens from gun violence.
This isn’t judicial restraint. It’s judicial revolution—and it’s breaking democracy.
Decision 1: Presidential Immunity (Trump v. United States)
The Ruling
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all “official acts”—with absolute immunity for core constitutional powers.
The decision created a three-tiered framework:
- Absolute immunity for actions within exclusive presidential authority (pardons, military command, executive branch control)
- Presumptive immunity for other official acts (rebuttable only by showing no danger to executive function)
- No immunity for unofficial acts (but prosecutors can’t use evidence from official acts)
Why It Matters
This decision means:
- Presidents can commit crimes using official powers - As long as the crime involves “official acts,” prosecution is nearly impossible
- Evidence laundering - Prosecutors can’t cite official communications even for unofficial conduct
- Blank check for abuse - Presidents can weaponize official authority against political enemies without accountability
- Democracy unprotected - Attempts to overturn elections using presidential powers are immune from prosecution
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was blunt: the decision makes the president “a king above the law.”
Real-World Consequences
Under this framework:
- A president could order the military to suppress protests—immune
- A president could direct the Justice Department to prosecute political opponents—immune
- A president could use pardons as bribes—immune
- A president could coordinate with allies to overturn an election using executive powers—immune
The decision doesn’t just protect Donald Trump from prosecution for January 6. It gives all future presidents a roadmap for authoritarian abuse.
Decision 2: Chevron Overturned (Loper Bright)
The Ruling
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ending 40 years of judicial deference to federal agency expertise.
For four decades, when Congress passed statutes with ambiguous language, courts deferred to reasonable agency interpretations. Agencies had flexibility to regulate based on technical expertise, changing circumstances, and scientific evidence.
The Court abolished this framework, declaring that courts—not expert agencies—must determine the meaning of ambiguous statutes.
Why It Matters
Federal agencies regulate:
- Environmental protection (EPA)
- Workplace safety (OSHA)
- Food and drug safety (FDA)
- Financial markets (SEC)
- Telecommunications (FCC)
- Consumer protection (CFPB)
These agencies employ scientists, economists, engineers, and technical experts who understand complex regulatory challenges.
Overturning Chevron means:
- Judges replace experts - Federal courts, not scientists, will interpret environmental laws
- Massive litigation explosion - Every regulation becomes subject to judicial second-guessing
- Regulatory paralysis - Agencies can’t adapt to new challenges without congressional action
- Corporate power expansion - Industries can sue to block regulations they don’t like
Real-World Consequences
As documented in our Chevron post, the pattern is already clear. Just as gun litigation increased 919% after Bruen, we’re seeing an explosion of challenges to agency regulations across every sector.
Regulations that took years of expert analysis to develop are being struck down by judges with no specialized knowledge.
The same corporate interests that funded the Federalist Society’s judicial pipeline are now reaping the rewards: friendly judges willing to second-guess scientific expertise.
Decision 3: Gun Rights Extremism (Bruen)
The Ruling
In June 2022, the Court struck down New York’s century-old concealed carry law and announced a radical new framework for evaluating all gun regulations.
Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that gun regulations must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Not whether they save lives. Not whether they serve compelling public interests. Not whether experts believe they’re necessary.
Only whether there’s a historical analogue from the 1700s or 1800s.
Why It Matters
This framework makes 18th-century musket regulations the standard for evaluating 21st-century gun violence prevention.
Since Bruen:
- Litigation explosion - Gun cases increased 919%, from 74 per decade to 680 annually
- Regulations struck down - Laws preventing domestic abusers, felony defendants, and drug users from owning guns have been blocked
- Public safety sacrificed - States that weakened firearm permitting laws saw an 11% rise in handgun homicides
- Historical absurdity - Judges search colonial-era records to determine if modern assault weapons can be regulated
Real-World Consequences
On December 13, 2025, a gunman killed two students and wounded nine at Brown University during an exam review session. This was the 43rd shooting on a college campus in 2025 that resulted in casualties.
The Bruen framework dismantled the legal tools states and cities used to prevent such tragedies. Every common-sense gun safety law must now pass an 18th-century history test—and many don’t.
When courts strike down gun safety laws, people die. The Supreme Court has blood on its hands.
The Common Thread: Dismantling Democratic Accountability
These three decisions aren’t unrelated. They share a coordinated philosophy:
1. Power Flows Up, Accountability Flows Down
- Presidential immunity: Executives gain power, lose accountability
- Chevron overturned: Agencies lose power, courts gain control
- Bruen: States lose power to protect citizens, gun owners gain rights
In each case, the Court expands authority for some (presidents, gun owners, corporations) while limiting the ability of government to provide accountability or protection.
2. Expertise Doesn’t Matter
- Presidential immunity: Ignores constitutional scholars and historical evidence against monarchy
- Chevron overturned: Replaces agency scientists with generalist judges
- Bruen: Substitutes 18th-century gun regulations for modern public safety research
The Court elevates its own ideological preferences over expert consensus in every field.
3. Historical Cherry-Picking
Each decision claims to rely on “history and tradition” while ignoring inconvenient historical facts:
- Presidential immunity: Founders explicitly rejected monarchy and divine right
- Chevron overturned: Agencies have regulated for over a century with deference
- Bruen: Colonial-era gun restrictions were common in populated areas
The Court invents history to justify predetermined outcomes.
4. Democratic Choices Overruled
- Congress can’t hold presidents accountable through criminal law
- Congress can’t delegate technical decisions to expert agencies
- States can’t protect citizens from gun violence through tailored regulations
In each case, the Court substitutes its judgment for democratic choices made by elected representatives.
The Consequences: A Less Safe, Less Functional Democracy
These decisions combine to create a crisis of governance:
Presidents Become Autocrats
With immunity from prosecution for official acts, presidents can:
- Weaponize the Justice Department against political enemies
- Use military force domestically without accountability
- Overturn election results using executive powers
- Pardon co-conspirators in exchange for loyalty
Democracy requires that no one is above the law. Presidential immunity places presidents above the law.
Regulation Becomes Impossible
Without Chevron deference, agencies can’t:
- Respond quickly to public health emergencies
- Adapt regulations to new technologies
- Implement complex environmental protections
- Regulate financial markets based on economic expertise
Every regulation becomes subject to litigation and judicial second-guessing. Regulatory paralysis follows.
Gun Violence Becomes Inevitable
Under Bruen, states and cities can’t:
- Require permits for concealed carry
- Prohibit guns in sensitive places like schools
- Keep guns from domestic abusers or dangerous individuals
- Regulate assault weapons or high-capacity magazines
The framework treats modern public safety as constitutionally irrelevant. Shootings increase. The body count rises.
Who Benefits? Who Suffers?
Winners
- Presidents: Can abuse power without criminal accountability
- Corporations: Can challenge regulations using friendly judges
- Gun manufacturers: Can sell more weapons as regulations fall
- The Federalist Society: Gets the judicial outcomes it paid for
- Billionaires: Can corrupt the regulatory process through litigation
Losers
- American democracy: Can’t hold presidents accountable
- Public health and safety: Can’t regulate guns, pollution, or workplace hazards
- Scientific expertise: Replaced by judicial interpretation
- State and local governments: Can’t protect their citizens
- The American people: Live in a less safe, less democratic country
The Supreme Court’s Ideological Project
These decisions didn’t happen by accident. They’re the culmination of a decades-long project by the Federalist Society and conservative legal movement to:
- Expand executive power (when Republicans hold office)
- Dismantle the administrative state (to benefit corporations)
- Impose originalism (as a cover for conservative policy preferences)
- Limit government power (except when exercised by presidents and police)
The six-justice conservative majority, installed through violations of democratic norms (Merrick Garland’s blocked nomination, Amy Coney Barrett’s rushed confirmation), is implementing this agenda regardless of public opinion, democratic preferences, or real-world consequences.
What These Decisions Mean for Court Reform
Trump v. United States, Loper Bright, and Bruen make the case for Supreme Court reform impossible to ignore.
The Court Cannot Self-Correct
These aren’t narrow legal decisions subject to incremental adjustment. They’re sweeping rewrites of constitutional law that:
- Overturn decades of precedent
- Ignore contrary evidence and expertise
- Impose ideological preferences as constitutional requirements
- Cannot be reversed without Court composition changes
Congressional Action Is Necessary
Because these decisions claim constitutional authority, Congress cannot simply pass laws to override them. The only remedies are:
- Court expansion - Add justices to rebalance the Court
- Term limits - Ensure regular turnover and democratic accountability
- Jurisdiction stripping - Remove certain categories of cases from Court review
- Constitutional amendment - The slowest and most difficult option
The Urgency Is Now
Every day these decisions remain in force:
- Presidents grow more authoritarian
- Regulations get struck down
- Gun violence continues
- Democracy weakens
The Supreme Court has demonstrated it will not voluntarily constrain itself. External reform is the only solution.
Conclusion: Three Decisions, One Crisis
In the span of two years, the Supreme Court:
- Made presidents immune from criminal prosecution for official acts
- Transferred regulatory authority from expert agencies to generalist judges
- Required gun safety laws to match 18th-century historical traditions
Each decision alone would be radical. Together, they form a constitutional crisis.
The Court has granted presidents dictatorial immunity, paralyzed the administrative state, and prevented states from protecting citizens from gun violence.
This is judicial activism of the highest order—wielding unelected power to impose an ideological agenda over democratic preferences, expert consensus, and public safety.
The three decisions broke democracy. Court reform is the only way to fix it.
We can expand the Court. We can impose term limits. We can strip jurisdiction. We can adopt enforceable ethics codes.
What we cannot do is accept a Supreme Court that places presidents above the law, judges above experts, and 18th-century history above 21st-century public safety.
The Court made its choice. Now we must make ours: reform or surrender to judicial autocracy.
Democracy is on the line. Time is running out.