Did the Supreme Court F*ck Up Checks and Balances?

Mathew Habib - Chief

January 2026

I’ve read a lot about Trump v. United States, and honestly, this decision feels like a slap in the face to the principle of checks and balances. The Supreme Court didn’t break the system entirely, but they tainted it in a way that makes presidential power harder to hold accountable — and that should worry everyone.

Here’s the background: the case centered on whether a sitting or former president can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office. Trump argued that because some actions were part of his presidency, he should have immunity from prosecution. The Court didn’t give him a blanket pass, but they created a framework that heavily favors the executive.

The ruling basically says presidents have near-total immunity for “official acts” and some protection even for borderline actions. What counts as “official” is vague, leaving future courts to decide — often years after the fact — whether a president’s actions are punishable. That’s a lot of power concentrated in one office, and it’s power that the people, Congress, or prosecutors can barely check.

From a legal standpoint, the Court leaned on the idea that the presidency must be protected to function independently. That’s not completely unreasonable. But in practice, the ruling makes it much harder to hold a president accountable, even for clearly illegal acts. Evidence tied to official actions can now be excluded, and prosecutors must navigate extra hurdles before even bringing a case.

I think the real problem is the precedent this sets. Checks and balances exist to prevent any branch from being untouchable. The Court has now tilted the scales. By expanding presidential immunity, they’ve made it easier for future presidents to act with impunity, knowing that legal accountability is delayed, limited, or nearly impossible for official acts.

This is not abstract. It’s structural. Congress may try to act, but lawmakers are often gridlocked and polarized. Prosecutors now face an uphill legal battle even before they reach the merits of a case. The judiciary, ironically, becomes a gatekeeper that can shield executive misconduct instead of checking it.

From my perspective, the Court didn’t just interpret the law — they reshaped it in a way that favors one branch over the others. Checks and balances are meant to be a system where power is held accountable. This decision taints that system. It doesn’t eliminate oversight completely, but it weakens it in a profound, long-lasting way.

If you care about democracy, this ruling is alarming. It essentially tells future presidents: “You have more protection than the rest of us, and the courts will police it narrowly.” That undermines the very accountability the Constitution was designed to guarantee.

So yes, the Supreme Court did just fracture checks and balances — not by breaking the system entirely, but by tipping it dangerously toward presidential power at the expense of accountability. And the consequences will be felt for years to come.