US Supreme Court immunity ruling opens a Pandora’s Box

The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday (July 1) that former president Donald Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from criminal prosecution, a decision that may effectively delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

The ruling introduced the unprecedented principle that any US president can legally subvert US institutions. In turn, the verdict has changed the US as well as the terms of its competition with Russia and China.

Did the Supreme Court ruling open a Pandora’s box for the US and the wider world? Looking at it from Rome, it’s all very puzzling and can spin Machiavellian thoughts. A flurry of public criticisms ensued; here are just a few samples:

“The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority fundamentally altered American democracy on Monday, awarding the President a sweeping and novel immunity when he weaponizes the power of his office for corrupt, violent, or treasonous purposes. This near-insurmountable shield against prosecution for crimes committed while in office upends the structure of the federal government, elevating the presidency to a king-like status high above the other branches.”[i]

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President… the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more … The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled