Sources confirm the US Supreme Court has issued a pair of rulings that simultaneously undercut and aggrandise Donald Trump, leaving legal scholars on both sides of the Atlantic scrambling for coherence. In one case, the Court decisively rejected Trump’s sweeping claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office. In another, it handed the former president a substantive victory by curtailing the authority of federal agencies, effectively transferring power from the executive branch to the judiciary and, by extension, to future presidents who will appoint its members. UK legal experts, who have been watching the proceedings with growing alarm, warn that the implications extend far beyond American borders.
“What we are witnessing is a judicial reconfiguration of the presidency,” said Dr. Eleanor Fisk, a constitutional law professor at the London School of Economics. “The immunity ruling says no man is above the law, but the administrative state ruling says the president can reshape the law through a pliant judiciary. It’s a paradox that undermines the rule of law itself.”
The immunity decision, which sources confirm split the Court along ideological lines, ruled that Trump must face trial on charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The 6-3 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that “the President is not immune from criminal prosecution for unofficial acts.” But the same ruling punts the question of what constitutes an “official act” back to lower courts, ensuring years of litigation. Trump’s legal team had argued that any action taken while president, including pressuring state officials to alter vote counts, was immune. The Court rejected that blanket assertion, but left the door open for future claims.
On the same day, the Court issued a second decision that legal experts say may have a more lasting impact. In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year precedent that gave federal agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo strips agencies of that interpretive power, transferring it to judges. UK barristers have begun to dissect the ruling, noting that it will give presidents greater control over regulatory policy through judicial appointments. “Chevron was a shield against presidential overreach,” said Sir James Whitford, a retired High Court judge. “Now that shield is gone. The executive will be able to bypass Congress by relying on a judiciary that shares its political views.”
The dual rulings have sparked confusion in Whitehall, where officials have long viewed the US justice system as a model of stability. “We are observing a form of constitutional whiplash,” said a senior Foreign Office analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The message to UK companies is clear: the rules of the game in Washington are changing, and not necessarily in a predictable direction.”
Legal experts are particularly concerned about the implications for international law. Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from NATO and trade agreements, and the new rulings could embolden him if he returns to office. “If a president can now reinterpret treaties through judicial allies, the entire post-war legal order is at risk,” said Professor Fisk. “The UK must prepare for a world where American commitments are no longer binding.”
For now, both sides are claiming victory. Trump’s campaign called the immunity ruling a “narrow technicality” while celebrating the Chevron decision as a blow to the “deep state.” Democrats warn that the Court has handed Trump a weapon. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the shadows. But one thing is certain: the Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the balance of power, and the ripples will be felt from the corridors of the White House to the chambers of Westminster.
