Rachel Maddow calls Supreme Court’s Trump immunity decision a 'death squad ruling'

TheU.S. Supreme Courtdelivered a ruling that many critics argue elevates the presidency to near-monarchical status by granting absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts. The 6-3 decision, seen as a significant win for former PresidentDonald Trump, has prompted widespread debate and concern among legal experts, politicians, and media commentators.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

In a special segment on MSNBC, anchorRachel Maddow joined Chris Hayes and other colleagues to express her alarm over the decision. Maddow described the ruling as “shocking” and “dire,” emphasizing its far-reaching implications.

“I did not expect that they would do this,” Maddow began. “Donald Trump and his counsel asked for this 100 percent absolute immunity thing, which was insane. I would say they got 105 percent of what they were asking for.”

Maddow pointed out that the practical effect was far more sweeping despite Chief Justice John Roberts’ attempt to temper the ruling with language suggesting some measure of restraint. “The practical impact of what they have done is to give Trump immunity that even he and his counsel did not ask for,” she said.

Throughout the oral arguments, the justices explored various hypotheticals, including extreme scenarios like the assassination of a political rival. Maddow referenced these discussions to underscore the ruling’s potential dangers.

“Given that the hypotheticals over the course of these arguments included things like, can the president assassinate a rival? I think we have to look at the Supreme Court’s affirmative answer to that. Yes, you can. With as much seriousness as it deserves,” Maddow asserted. “I mean, this is a death squad ruling.”

She warned that the decision effectively allows a president to carry out any action, as long as it can be framed as an official or quasi-official act, without facing accountability, both during and after their term in office. Maddow also highlighted the implications for Trump specifically.

“This is a president who has activated pro-Trump paramilitary groups that wear insignia and T-shirts and hold placards celebrating literally right-wing death squads,” she noted. “This is a president who has talked about absolutely using the Justice Department to go after his rivals.”

Related: Rachel Maddow calls out Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump immunity claim as ‘flagrant bull pucky’

During his presidency, Trump was often criticized for his confrontational style and for encouraging his supporters to take aggressive actions. For instance, the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, saw pro-Trump groups storming the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. These events have led to ongoing debates about presidential power and accountability limits.

PresidentJoe Biden also opposed the ruling in a rare late evening address to the nation from the White House. Biden argued that the Supreme Court’s decision undermines American principles and poses a threat to democracy.

“For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,” Biden said. He expressed concern that the ruling means Trump would likely avoid prosecution before the November election, calling it “a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.”

Biden urged the American people to consider the implications of Trump’s actions and the potential for unchecked presidential power. “The American people must decide whether Donald Trump’s assault on our democracy on January 6th makes him unfit for public office in the highest office in the land,” Biden said. He emphasized the importance of character in the presidency, recalling the principles upheld by George Washington.

Reflecting on the gravity of the situation, Maddow concluded, “This explicitly immunizes anything the president wants to do through the Justice Department but explicitly justifies anything the president wants to do—full stop—to anyone. And that is as serious as it gets.”