Critics have condemned the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity as a partisan gift to defendant, former president, Republican nominee, and convicted felon Donald Trump — but some legal experts say the justices quietly helped themselves.
Politico reporter Kyle Cheney Friday shared conversations with top law professors about the controversial ruling in Trump's federal election case that granted some protections to the former president but left many legal questions unanswered.
"One expert told us that seemed to be the court’s design," Cheney said on X, "to maximize their power by ensuring that they are the arbiters of any immunity dispute that arises later, a power grab of sorts."
The expert was Yale law professor William Eskridge, who focused on the burden the court placed on Washington D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan to parse out which of Trump's acts were official.
Politico described the standard set by Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow majority panelists as "mushy."
"It’s unusual for the Roberts court to adopt standards, rather than bright-line rules or clear historical tests,” said Eskridge. “Case after case, they’ve rejected balancing standards.”
ALSO READ: 21 worthless knick-knacks Donald Trump will give you for your cash
Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman told Politico he was stunned by the emphasis placed on personal judgement.
“My goodness is that subjective,” said Shugerman. “This presumption of immunity is basically whatever the Supreme Court thinks is intrusive and, boy, is that an open door for partisan interpretation.”
The Supreme Court's exception on setting subjective standards has often been cases related to Trump, who has tested the powers of the presidency in ways never before witnessed in the U.S., Eskridge argued.
Trump has several criminal court cases linked to attempts to bury salacious story before entering the White House, to hold onto power upon being voted out of the White House, and documents special counsel Jack Smith says he should not have retained after he left the White House.
Trump was found guilty in the criminal hush money case in New York City, pleaded not guilty in his two election interference cases, and last month saw his classified documents case dismissed.
But Trump is not the only common thread in the Supreme Court's more subjective rulings, Eskridge argued.
Each produced, he said, “a result that maximizes the power of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
