MAGA's unprincipled legal reasoning supporting American authoritarianism

Context

A constant in recent MAGA legal reasoning at the USSC is use of law as a means to authoritarian ends by the six Republicans. Such weaponization converts the law from from a system of neutral principles binding more or less on all into a tool for advancing partisan political agendas or private benefits. The consequences ripple through every foundation of democratic society, including morality, democratic institutions, and the rule of law itself.

When law becomes weaponized for partisan purposes, it loses its pro-democracy moral authority. The law's legitimacy comes mostly from the idea that it represents a system of neutral, impartial principles. The law has intrinsic moral value because it structures political, commercial, and social relationships around principles of even-handedness and predictability.

Democracy and the law requires institutions that operate independently of corrupting partisan and special interest influence, particularly those responsible for accountability and justice. Judicial independence is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. That helps ensure that courts remain accountable to the Constitution and laws, not to politicians, demagogues, ideologies or special interests. When legal institutions are captured for partisan ends, independence is lost.

Unprincipled, dishonest MAGA judging

An article published by The New Republic discusses an example of the unprincipled, dishonest legal reasoning. MAGA USSC judges now routinely resort to this deplorable state of affairs when facts and principled, honest legal reasoning cannot lead to partisan MAGA outcomes. The article focuses on Chief Justice John Roberts weaponization Federalist No. 70 to enable and protect a unitary president who is above the law.

The bit about putting Trump above the law came in the 2024 USSC decision in Trump v. US, which granted broad immunity from prosecution of crimes a president commits while in office. In essence, Trump cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes while he is in office, including serious felonies. The legal reasoning to support that grievous wound on our democracy and rule of law is based on lies and dishonest reasoning that Roberts dreamed up to support his vision of a corrupt American dictator.

In granting above the law status to a US president, Roberts intentionally misinterpreted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 70. He had to do that to justify creating an authoritarian vision of presidential supremacy, now called the unitary executive. In Trump v. US, the grant of criminal immunity for crimes in office actually upends Hamilton's commentary about executive accountability. Advocates of  unitary-executive theory, including Roberts, have weaponized select phrases in Federalist No. 70 regarding "energy in the executive" and "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch". MAGA elites and Roberts use those comments to argue for essentially unrestrainable presidential power. That completely ignores Hamilton's equal emphasis on accountability mechanisms to restrain a rogue president.

Hamilton never argued for a unitary president like what Roberts and the other five MAGA USSC judges now support. In an earlier 2020 case, Seila Law v. CFPB, Roberts falsely claimed that Hamilton viewed legislative power as a "special threat to individual liberty" while treating the executive as uniquely democratic. He just made that up. That directly contradicts Hamilton's text, which only observed that legislative debate, while sometimes obstructive, promotes deliberation and circumspection as checks on majority excesses. Hamilton never characterized Congress as a major threat. Roberts himself made up that unprincipled falsehood himself.

In his criminal immunity decision, Roberts cherry-picked Hamilton's comments about presidential "vigor" while ignoring passages about the need to keep a president restrained and accountable.​ He also decontextualized quotes in Seila Law. There, Roberts used Hamilton's warning about "jarrings of parties" in a plural executive (not a unitary executive) as if it applied to legislative-executive separation of powers. What the unprincipled, authoritarian Roberts did was to claim a need for presidential immunity, calling it a constitutional necessity. But in fact no such necessity exists. He asserted that prosecution would paralyze the presidency, but that was a claim that Hamilton never made. Only Roberts and the other five MAGA USSC judges make that claim.

Authoritarian MAGA legal reasoning asserts that presidential immunity exists because MAGA wants to build an unaccountable unitary executive with dictator-level power. The constitution itself does not provide a compelling case that a US president needs to have immunity for crimes he commits while in office. So, MAGA judges simply made up an unpersuasive reason for immunity.

Are they really that ignorant?

The TNR article comments that the Heritage Foundation's Kevin Roberts (an important Project 2025 author) celebrated the Trump immunity decision by telling Americans to read No. 70 over Independence Day. He apparently believe that text, which is not part of the US Constitution, supports the idea of an American dictatorship. That text argues the opposite of what Roberts wants us to celebrate. Readers of Federalist No. 70 will find that Hamilton's clear intent was to explain why the presidency ought to be be constrained by the rule of law, not freed from it as Roberts and the other MAGA judges have done.

Hamilton's presidency was envisioned as energetic yet prosecutable. That contradicts Roberts' invented presidential immunity holding. Roberts' vision makes presidents "sacred and inviolable" like the British kings Hamilton explicitly rejected.

It is also worth noting that nothing in the US Constitution explicitly says that a president is above the law and not accountable for their crimes. That is a cynical fabrication. It was made up by activist authoritarian MAGA judges in their quest to kill democracy and the rule of law. They need to do that to establish a deeply corrupt, American authoritarian MAGA state. 

America's bipartisan moral rot cancer

 Context

A NYT opinion (not paywalled), The Pardon That Represents the New Era of Corruption, by two former federal corruption prosecutors discusses a example of blatant moral rot related to a Trump pardon of a sleazy political criminal. Both political parties are complicit in the moral rot. This example is representative of a much broader gaping wound on our democracy. Deep moral rot that has set in on our two-party system. At present, it is very likely not reasonably repairable.

Last week, Trump issued another pardon that is corrodes the rule of law. Trump pardoned Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat. He was awaiting trial on well-documented federal bribery charges. This pardon was brazen. Trump publicly acknowledged that he had issued it to induce Cuellar to switch parties, and attacked him for a “lack of LOYALTY” when he didn't.

Instead of criticizing or staying silent, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries welcomed and justified Trump's unwelcome, unjustifiable pardon. Jeffries pandered to maintain Cuellar’s party loyalty. He attacked the legitimacy of a very legitimate criminal case. Jeffries publicly dismissed the not at all thin federal indictment against Cuellar as “very thin.”

What about the Democratic Party?

The deep moral rot of Trump and his MAGA elites is very well documented and no longer rationally disputed. It is still irrationally disputed, as things in politics often are, but that major concern is off topic.

The question is why did Jeffries, a Democrat, praise Trump's clearly morally rotted pardon? Exactly who is this guy? Well, he was put in power by Democratic party elites, especially by the morally challenged Nancy Pelosi.** therefore, Jeffries can be therefore be seen as representative of Democratic Party leadership morality or lack thereof.

** As some may recall, Pelosi had a hard time figuring out why insider trading by members of congress, their families and some others should be made illegal like it is for everyone else. At least for some of us, the arrogance and condescension in her moral cluelessness was insulting and breathtaking.

If one looks, one finds that Jeffries has a long, troubled moral track record, to say the least. His competence in terms of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is weak. Arguably, that reflects the inherent moral incompatibility of democracy and the rule of law with post Citizens United corruption of politics (also a major, but off topic concern).

For example, 1992, as a 21-year-old college student, Jeffries wrote an editorial defending his uncle, Leonard Jeffries. Leonard was a Black studies professor who had made virulently antisemitic statements claiming "Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies" and comparing Jews to "dogs" and "skunks". Jeffries has lied about this and been found to be a liar.

Also, some credible critics have criticized Jeffries' timid strategy and risk-averse politics. They plausibly argue he fails to be the leader for the party needs because it is basically operating without effective political leadership. Old Democratic Party dinosaurs like Schumer and Clyburn are feckless and worthless as party leaders. Jeffries has turned out to be corrupt, but no better than the old dinosaurs.

In short, Jeffries' decision-making on key issues like the Cuellar pardon is solid evidence of poor judgment. His defense of Trump's Cuellar pardon is an inexcusable moral failure that legitimizes corruption for narrow political gain. He is driven by short-term political calculations over moral principle and vigorous defense of democracy and the rule of law.

Are moral rectitude and holding power in American national politics currently mutually exclusive?

Under current post Citizens United politics, it now appears that moral rectitude in both parties are mostly to completely incompatible with gaining and holding power. The 2010 Citizens United USSC decision opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of special interest money in and corruption of politics. That money has now almost completely subdued and neutered pro-democracy and pro-public interest morality in politics. Money and power talk, while everything else walks.

In the 2024 election cycle alone, over $1 billion in "dark money", which is undisclosed donor spending, flooded elections. Billionaire spending multiplied by a factor of 163 since Citizens United. Over 80% of billionaire spending now flows through channels that were illegal before 2010. Some scholars describe the situation as "dependence corruption", which is politicians' dependence on private campaign finance that leads to democratic erosion. Even without explicit any quid pro quo bribery, this is systemic corruption that courts refuse to recognize as legally actionable.

One expert on corruption in politics, Sarah Chayes, commented that Democrats have jumped into the corruption with both feet, and now neither party can credibly defend democratic norms. Both are captured by the same donor class. Public opinion mirrors Chayes' assertion. Over 80% of Americans believe the federal government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and not for all the people or the public interest. Research shows these public perceptions of corruption are accurate, not mistaken.

Points to consider

So did Jeffries had no choice but to pander to Cuellar to keep him in the party? But even if Cuellar did not turn into a Republican and still got re-elected despite his corruption, how does that help democracy or the rule of law? Cuellar would still be an immoral crook. This is evidence of just how broken our morally rotted, special interest money corrupted two-party system is. Apparently, Democratic Party leadership feels forced to pander to criminals. Even if the GOP is significantly worse that the Democratic Party the moral rot is deep with both.

Federal jobs data and the rational basis for distrust

The WSJ reports that Federal Reserva chairman Jerome Powell suspects that federal jobs data is underestimating job losses. By now things like that should be no surprise to most people who pay attention and are not staunch Trump supporters. For months Trump and MAGA elites have been targeting federal data collection and analysis functions to get rid of inconvenient facts and truths.

Powell said Fed staff economists estimate that federal payroll statistics may be overstating job creation by up to 60,000 jobs per month. Since published data show average gains of roughly 40,000 jobs a month since April. If those estimates are right, the true underlying reality would be a loss of about 20,000 jobs per month. 

In view of recent history, it is not unreasonable or irrational to distrust data coming from the Trump administration. Given the evidence, recent unprecedented actions against federal statistical agencies make skepticism reasonable and rational. While historical safeguards at agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) were designed to be robust against political interference, MAGA actions indicate that these firewalls have been dismantled. The current reality is plain to see -- Trump has moved well beyond rhetoric. He has in fact purged officials who produce inconvenient data.

One example is from August 2025. In that situation, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer because she was responsible for release of inconvenient jobs data. Without evidence (as usual), Trump lied and falsely claimed that the numbers were "RIGGED" to make him look bad. In firing her, he cynically breached public trust. The BLS Commissioner is a fixed-term technical role, not a standard political appointee. The Commissioner's job is specifically to protect economic data from political interference by a president or congress. By firing the head of the agency for producing inconvenient data, Trump signaled to remaining BLS staff that their job security depends on producing convenient data, not accurate data.

By now, all of this lying, corruption and sleaze is just normal business operations under morally rotted Trump and morally rotted MAGA elites in power. Trump voters asked for this, and now they are getting it good and hard. Too bad the rest of us are getting it too -- we didn't ask for it.

Legal scholar commentary on what is happening to our democracy

 

Context

The unitary executive: The six Republican justices on the current USSC (US Supreme Court) support an authoritarian radical legal theory called the unitary executive. Of the six, only Alito has publicly stated he supports a unitary executive. The support of the other five is implicit but clear from their decisions and reliance on the shadow docket to dismantle democracy with essentially no explanation. The implicit, unstated goal of a radical right unitary executive is to establish a dictatorship that (1) calls itself a democracy, and (2) is run by an unrestrained president who is above the law. The explicit stated goal is that by giving almost unlimited power to the president, they will be more accountable to voters via elections than presidents in the past have been.

So far, the six Republican judges have not explained how an unrestrained president will be constrained by elections alone. The six simply say that elections will be the accountability mechanism and our liberty will be protected that way. They provide no explanation of how that would actually work in view of how democracy and elections currently work. They also ignore dissents in their opinions that expose the logical incoherence of empowering a dictator and then expecting them to be accountable to the people. Empirical evidence about dictatorships indicate that they are simply wrong. By definition, dictators are not accountable to the people. Calling a president with dictator-level power a "unitary executive" does not change the fact that he is still a dictator. The disdain of the six Republican judges for reasoned dissenting argument is evidence of their authoritarian intent.

Dictatorship science: From a social science point of view, the unitary executive theory operates on a catastrophically flawed assumption about competence and the public interest. Political science systematically refutes the idea that loyalist-staffed agencies will govern effectively and serve the public rather than the president's personal interests or special interests. There is no mechanism that would ensure service to the public interest as long as a unitary executive is in office. Available evidence shows the opposite occurs routinely (and this), with the dictator and allied special interests generally benefitting at the expense of the public interest and civil liberties.

The experts opine

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by legal scholars of democracy and dictatorship assess the current state of affairs with the USSC regarding our democracy and rule of law. At issue is radical right authoritarian or MAGA attacks on the independence of supposedly independent federal agencies. Court’s right wing has made clear over several terms that the New Deal/Great Society model of expert, semi‑independent agencies is basically unconstitutional. The opinion ties this to recent and pending cases about agencies like the CFPB, SEC, FTC, NLRB, and others.

According to the experts, the USSC is (1) further removing of restrictions on a president’s power to fire people with or without any reason, (2) placing limits on agencies’ funding outside the annual appropriations process, and (3) limiting delegation of authority from Congress to executive agencies. This is part of a coordinated campaign to gut and neuter the administrative functions by shifting power from congress and federal agencies to the president.

In particular, agencies that serve democracy and the public interest while constraining a president, e.g., ethics offices, civil service protections, and protections for consumers, labor, environment, and elections, are all attacked. They are weakened or completely neutered as unconstitutional or “unaccountable”. By contrast with gutting public interest federal functions, agencies that enable Trump, e.g., ICE, DOJ leadership, partisan election enforcement, and the national security apparatus, are folded more tightly under direct presidential control. The net effect has been and is continuing to be a transfer of an enormous amount of unaccountable power to the president, i.e., the unitary executive.

In short, the USSC’s ongoing project is not a neutral rebalancing of power. Instead, it is a focused, wholesale empowerment of presidential power that is aligned with his own interests and those of allied special interests. That presidential power is not aligned with the public interest, democracy, the rule of law or civil liberties. It is aligned with the president himself.

The one-way flow of power: Finally, the experts point out that that the Court’s supposed concerns about “accountability” and “separation of powers” overwhelmingly cuts in only one direction, namely in favor of the unitary executive. Environmental, labor, consumer protection, civil rights, and financial regulatory agencies are gutted and neutered. By contrast, corporate and wealthy interests gain major new leverage, e.g., by blocking or nullifying complex regulation. Also, when the Court invalidates or narrows agency powers, it rarely insists that Congress actually step in to fill the gap. The USSC knows full well that polarization and gridlock will keep our broken Congress from doing much of anything to compete with the president for the affected powers.

Collectively, all of that contradicts elite MAGA claims that these power flows are about a legitimate constitutional structure. Instead, this is about major deregulatory politics disguised as distortions about what the Founders intended and actually produced. The USSC's administrative‑law project is partisan institutional engineering, not a neutral, principled or fact-based exercise of constitutional theory.

Points for consideration

Accountability America's democratic regulatory state depends on a mix of laws enacted by Congress, expert implementation of those laws by agencies with expertise, and procedural safeguards, transparency, and judicial review to protect the public interest. Weak, delegitimized independent agencies will be unable to resist abusive, partisan, or corrupt uses of power exercised by a unitary executive. In essence, we will have a dictator for a president, or something close to it.

Is that a plausible assessment of our current situation? What compelling empirical evidence is there that contradicts that assessment?