To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution” (live updates, nytimes.com, July 1):
The Supreme Court’s decision that presidents have presumptive immunity for “official acts” raises the importance of this November’s presidential election from very important to critically important, even more than we thought possible before this ruling was issued.
If presidents can carefully frame a decision as an “official act,” no matter how outrageous it is and what their true intentions are, then their ability to act with impunity has been amplified. This presumed expansion of a president’s power sets the stage for a future “imperial presidency,” and it is music to Donald Trump’s ears.
If elected, Mr. Trump will unquestionably feel emboldened to act like an autocrat with unimpeded authority. Today is not a good day for American democracy and those of us who want to preserve it.
Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
The six justices who have provided cover for former President Donald Trump are bringing us back to the days of the American Revolution, when we fought the British in order to be free from the dictates of a king.
If a future Supreme Court made a decision providing substantial immunity to a president with a diametrically opposite ideology, would that be acceptable to those cheering this decision?
We can no longer say that no one is above the law.
Edwin Andrews
Malden, Mass.
Overturning Chevron
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Curb Federal Agencies’ Regulatory Clout” (front page, June 29):
Last week the Supreme Court overturned yet another precedent, with profound implication for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the pharmaceuticals we use, the protection of our wildlife, and other areas where the government helps ensure our health and safety.
With the repeal of the 40-year-old Chevron deference precedent, the judicial branch now substitutes its omniscient judgment over the executive branch experts responsible for developing regulations to implement the laws passed by Congress. The court thus anoints itself as the ultimate authority for scientific, technological, medical and many other areas of technical expertise, and as policymakers.
As an example of how dangerous and absurd this is, just the day before, in a separate decision involving the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate air pollution, the court repeatedly confused nitrogen oxide, a pollutant target by the E.P.A. in its challenged regulation, with nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxide creates smog. Nitrous oxide is laughing gas.
I doubt the E.P.A.’s air pollution experts are laughing about this gross error. Nor should we.
David Pederson
Excelsior, Minn.
The writer is a retired biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
To the Editor:
The take from the left on the overruling of Chevron is maddeningly simplistic. The suggestion that courts are not experts in subject matter assigned to agencies, and therefore only light review should be allowed, stands in opposition to the vast majority of cases in our legal system.
Courts, and juries, rule all the time on areas well outside their expertise — e.g., warning labels on products, whether pollution causes a particular disease, whether a business is a monopoly, and on and on in the civil arena.
Likewise, criminal cases involving our citizens’ freedom often involve issues that require expertise to understand, but we trust judges and citizen juries to make those decisions with no agency help whatsoever. The idea that agency interpretation gets this incredible level of deference is anathema to our system.
It does not make sense to place such trust in judges and juries in most areas, but find the overturning of Chevron deference imperialistic. It is just the opposite. A check on the administrative state from courts is critical. Chevron deference, a court-created doctrine, was the outlier. It is good that the court finally disposed of it.
Josh Archer
Atlanta
The writer is a civil litigator.
To the Editor:
Ironically, Chevron was championed by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was criticized by fellow conservatives for his strong defense of the judicial deference required by that decision. Chevron was a mandate against judicial activism, limiting the court’s ability to usurp the power of the executive branch and, to a significant extent, the legislative branch, when the statute is ambiguous.
Although Chevron may often be touted as a boon to big government, it is more a bastion of judicial restraint, allowing the other two governmental branches to do their job. Now the court has expanded its power and can no longer make even a pretense of judicial conservatism.
Robert J. Firestone
New York
The writer is an adjunct professor at New York Law School.
To the Editor:
The conservative judges on the Supreme Court clearly have a “precedence be damned” attitude. They have an agenda and don’t care who knows it.
If Paul Revere were alive today he’d be riding throughout the countryside crying out his warning: “The Supreme Court is coming!! The Supreme Court is coming!!”
Doug Williams
Minneapolis
Outdoor Sleeping Ban
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Uphold a Ban on Homeless People Sleeping Outdoors” (news article, June 29):
Even here in Oregon, where the Grants Pass outdoor sleeping ban originated, we have recognized the cruelty of this policy. In fact, Grants Pass may not be able to reinstate the outdoor sleeping ban because our state Legislature passed a law guaranteeing a so-called right to rest on public property if alternative sheltering is not available; we did this years ago.
A majority of us here in Oregon could see that the Grants Pass ban unjustly punishes those among us experiencing homelessness for simply meeting their basic human needs. It is deeply disturbing that our highest court could not see this also.
If the Supreme Court seeks to criminalize poverty, then it is more incumbent than ever on Congress to address it. Now is the moment for both parties to come together on a package of housing policies that both remedy and prevent homelessness.
An ideal place to start would be enacting a renter tax credit, capping rent costs at no more than 30 percent of a household’s income. I urge Congress to listen to the many constituents affected by the housing crisis. Provide tools to keep people in their homes, especially as the streets become an impossible alternative.
Laura Labarre
Portland, Ore.
The writer is director of communications at Results, a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization working with Congress to end poverty.
To the Editor:
The 6-to-3 Supreme Court decision upholding the authority of Grants Pass., Ore., to ban sleeping in public parks suggests a slight revision of Anatole France’s immortal quip.
It is the position of six justices that the United States Constitution, “in its majestic equality, allows cities to forbid rich and poor alike to sleep in public parks, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Steven Sverdlik
Dallas