In a landmark term that has reshaped the balance of power in Washington, the US Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump significant new authorities while simultaneously striking down some of his most controversial policies. British constitutional experts have warned that the rulings risk creating an “imperial presidency” with alarming implications for democratic checks and balances.
The court’s conservative majority ruled that Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, a decision that effectively shields the president from several pending investigations. The 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, overturned a lower court’s decision and has been hailed by the White House as a vindication of executive authority. Critics argue it places the president above the law.
Simultaneously, the court dealt a blow to Trump by rejecting his bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation. The ruling preserved the program but left its future uncertain. In another defeat, the court blocked the administration’s effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, a move that had been widely seen as an attempt to discourage immigrant participation.
Professor Andrew Blick of King’s College London said the immunity decision was "deeply troubling" for British observers. "We are witnessing the emergence of an imperial presidency where the chief executive is above the law and Congress is unable to hold him accountable," he said. "This is a dangerous precedent that could encourage future presidents to abuse their power."
Trade union leaders in the UK have expressed solidarity with American workers who fear the erosion of legal protections. “When a president is immune from prosecution, workers’ rights become vulnerable,” said Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. “We must stand together to defend democracy and the rule of law, which are the foundations of fair wages and safe workplaces.”
The rulings come amid growing concern about the concentration of power in the executive branch. Many British politicians and academics have pointed to the UK’s uncodified constitution as a potential safeguard, but warned that similar pressures exist here. The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently warned that the government’s use of Henry VIII powers – allowing ministers to amend primary legislation – risked undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
For ordinary working families in Britain, the US Supreme Court’s decisions may seem distant. But the ripple effects are real. A weakened American democracy could embolden populist leaders elsewhere, leading to policies that prioritise corporate profits over people’s livelihoods. Already, the UK has seen a rise in executive overreach, with the Trade Union Act 2016 restricting strike ballots and the power of unions to bargain collectively.
The US court’s term has also exposed deep divisions in American society. While Trump celebrated the immunity ruling, immigrant rights groups condemned the DACA decision as a temporary reprieve. The citizenship question defeat was a relief for activists who said it would have suppressed minority votes. These battles are not merely legal; they are about who gets to participate in democracy and whether the wealthy and powerful can escape accountability.
As British analysts parse the implications, one thing is clear: the American experiment in checks and balances is under strain. The Supreme Court has chosen to expand presidential power at a time when trust in institutions is already fractured. For working people in both countries, the stakes could not be higher. If the president can act with impunity, what protections remain for the most vulnerable?
