Even if she only mentioned it a couple of times, the Supreme Court loomed large in Kamala Harris’ speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in Chicago on Thursday night. After all, she addressed two of the biggest rulings in recent years, both of which involve the Republican presidential nominee: the court’s broad grant of criminal immunity for presidents and its stripping of abortion rights.
On immunity, Harris cast the decision in Trump v. United States as the foundation for an even more dangerous second Trump term if he wins in November: “Consider the power he will have, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Just imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails, and how he would use the immense powers of the presidency of the United States.”
Harris’ general description of the ruling — “that he would be immune from criminal prosecution” — triggered some fact-checkers, who noted that the high court’s ruling is technically more complex than her summary. But while adding context about the ruling is theoretically helpful — that he’s absolutely immune for “core” constitutional acts, presumptively immune for all official acts but not immune for unofficial ones — the reality is that the extent of Trump’s immunity is yet to be determined.
The federal election interference case is now back in the trial court, where U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will attempt to apply the new immunity test to Trump’s Washington, D.C., indictment in the first instance, after which the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority may have the last word on what its vague ruling means in practice. That is, unless Trump wins in November — in which case the prosecution is good as gone and we may never know how criminally immune the Roberts Court believes Trump to be.
At any rate, Harris’ statement about Trump lacking guardrails thanks to the immunity ruling may turn out to be prescient if he’s re-elected. However vague the court’s ruling, it could provide Trump more of a roadmap for how to use the awesome power of the presidency to his personal advantage while minimizing criminal exposure. Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States didn’t meaningfully address Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning in dissent that presidents can now, for example, order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival or organize a military coup to hold onto power with impunity.
The Democratic nominee also highlighted the high court’s wreckage on abortion: “But tonight, in America, too many women are not able to make those decisions. And let’s be clear about how we got here: Donald Trump handpicked members of the U.S. Supreme Court to take away reproductive freedom.” Indeed, Trump appointed three of the five justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022’s Dobbs decision.
Harris’ highlighting of both crucial rulings reminds us that the court is also on the ballot in November.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term kicks off in October.
