Back in August 1974, President Nixon stepped down when the Supreme Court determined that his taped conversations could not hide behind executive privilege. The demand was clear: the tapes had to go to the special prosecutor. When these recordings came to light, damning evidence emerged that proved Nixon was directly involved in obstructing justice during the Watergate scandal.
The Supreme Court of that time rose to the occasion, successfully safeguarding our constitutional structure. Contrast that with today, where the threats to our democracy are magnified yet the current Supreme Court seems unequipped to handle them.
Back in 1974, the court was aware that after 18 long months of public scrutiny surrounding Watergate, there was a pressing need to resolve the case regarding the presidential tapes swiftly. They also understood just how crucial it was for the judges to project an aura of impartiality in such a charged political climate.
To expedite matters, the court decided to listen to Nixon’s appeal on July 8—just 49 days following a setback at the district court. The ruling arrived swiftly on July 24, merely two weeks later.
In terms of impartiality, Justice Rehnquist recused himself because he had previously been part of Nixon’s Justice Department, allowing the remaining eight justices, including five from Republican appointees, to make a unanimous ruling against Nixon.
Today’s Supreme Court in 2025, however, presents a stark contrast. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito engage in decisions even after receiving considerable gifts from Republican benefactors, linking them to Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Failing to heed Rehnquist’s lesson about neutrality, they proceeded even as Thomas’s spouse was directly involved in those schemes—with a flag from that process flying over Alito’s vacation spot.
Adding to this mess, two others among the justices owe their appointments to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who manipulated confirmation processes to ensure that Democratic presidents couldn’t fill important vacancies.
The outcome? We now have a court which shields Trump’s overreaches instead of enforcing constitutional rights. This court seems indifferent to the behavior of a president who brazenly pressures loyal aides to handle political adversaries and punishes unfriendly media, fully compliant. This is the same individual who coerces lawyer firms and ages into unfair situations for universities, instills fear to quiet dissent, and whose main goal is simply amassing more personal power.
As lower courts attempt to issue logical decisions momentarily halting dubious administration actions to maintain order while the conflicts play out, this Supreme Court regularly sidesteps responsibility—often handing down vague brief orders that allow the administration to proceed unchecked. They’ve shown no issue with a president stepping in for Congress on fiscal matters, permissive racial profiling, or deporting migrants to places they don’t belong and where their safety isn’t guaranteed.
In instances where Justice Department lawyers mislead courts, it appears they expect us to believe in a world where we can trust the executive branch working in good faith.
This politicization becomes clear even before Trump took office, particularly regarding the matter of presidential immunity in his prosecution for attempting to illegally flip the 2020 election results. These were no light matters, and that public interest demanded determining Trump’s whether he was guilty before the 2024 election.
However, this court opted to ignore that pressing concern. After a lower court dismissed Trump’s immunity plea at the end of 2023, the court declined to expedite directly and overlook the appeals process. When the appeals court turned down the immunity plea again on February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court failed to quicken its review. Arguments were heard on April 25, with more than a two-month wait before delivering a final opinion.
Moreover, they defined an exceedingly broad concept of presidential immunity that mandated prolonged litigation, which ultimately delayed any trial before the 2024 elections—a solid win for Trump and a real disappointment for American citizens at the polls.
Looking ahead, we can only hope the Supreme Court will recognize we are living in unusual times, distinctly as it deals with Trump’s aspirations to deploy the military within our urban centers. Since we can’t fully count on the justices or the Republican Congress, we must persevere through peaceful protest, sustained litigation, and active political engagement. It’s crucial for universities, law firms, business leaders, and others to firm up against the overbearing actions of the Trump administration, treating him as he deserves—like an ordinary citizen, not royalty.
America’s economic achievements spring from the bedrock of our thriving constitutional democracy. Our freedoms and this stability find themselves under threat from Trump and his cronies.
Richard J. Davis is a former assistant Watergate special prosecutor and assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Carter administration.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
