Contentious Court Rulings: Immunity, Regulation and the Homeless

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.