In a recent Supreme Court argument in the case of Trump v. United States, the question of presidential immunity took center stage, igniting a discussion on the fundamental principles of law and accountability. The narrow focus of the case revolved around the ability of Special Counsel Jack Smith to seek a criminal conviction if President Donald Trump knowingly interfered with the results of an election.

However, rather than delving into the specifics of the case at hand, several justices expressed concern over hypothetical scenarios, diverting attention away from the actual matter before them. Their worries revolved around the potential threat to presidential power and the fear of future presidents facing criminal liability.

These concerns prompted questions such as whether a president could be charged with murder for ordering a bombing without sufficient evidence of potential casualties or if an overzealous prosecutor could turn a routine presidential action into a crime by alleging corrupt motives. While these questions may be thought-provoking, they were not directly relevant to the case at hand.

At the core of the issue is the principle that no person, including the president, is above the law. In a constitutional democracy, the power of government is derived from the people and the laws they create through their elected representatives. The president's duty is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, placing restrictions on the exercise of power.

The justices' concerns about chilling future presidents were met with the counterargument that the principle of no one being above the law strikes the right balance. If presidents are incentivized not to commit crimes, it indicates that the system is functioning as intended. In fact, history does not provide a single example of a president being prosecuted for a crime, and the only president who claimed immunity was driven from office and later pardoned.

The court's search for a legal test to protect presidents from prosecution in gray areas where official actions could be deemed criminal highlighted the dangers of adopting categorical approaches. For instance, suggesting that presidents should be immune for actions performed within their official capacity would shield core examples of official misconduct, such as bribery.

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that total immunity for official acts would enable a president to engage in corruption without facing criminal liability, citing scenarios like ordering the assassination of a political rival. Other suggestions, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh's proposal that core aspects of the presidency should not be regulated by Congress, raised concerns about potential abuses of power.

The court's failure to fully contemplate the implications of these suppositions highlights the importance of basing legal tests on concrete cases rather than abstract arguments. Testing proposed rules against realistic hypothetical scenarios is crucial in ensuring their soundness and compliance with the fundamental norms of democracy.

Ultimately, the rule of law imposes consequences for behavior that defies basic norms, including those of our democracy. The special counsel's ability to offer proof before a jury regarding possible misconduct by former President Trump should not be precluded by any plausible constitutional barrier. The principle of accountability remains central to the functioning of our legal system, reaffirming the importance of subjecting all individuals, regardless of their position, to the scrutiny of the law.

As the deliberations in Trump v. United States continue, the Supreme Court's ultimate decision will undoubtedly shape the understanding and application of presidential immunity in the United States.