<div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-0"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The first case cited as precedent in <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A790/342909/20250216104125294_Bessent%20v%20Dellinger%20Vacatur%20Application.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">the first Supreme Court brief</a> filed by lawyers for President Trump since he took office this year was <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">Trump v. United States</a>, the July decision that gave him substantial immunity from prosecution. That citation was the first of nine. <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A790/343108/20250219093542259_24A790%20Reply.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">A second brief</a>, filed days later, cited the decision eight more times.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">It was at first blush a poor fit. The issue in the new case, the first arising from a challenge to the administration’s blitz of executive actions, was whether Mr. Trump could fire the leader of an independent agency without cause. It had nothing to do with prosecutions or immunity, presidential or otherwise.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">But Mr. Trump’s lawyers had good reason to rely on the decision. Its legacy, scholars say, will not be its three-part test for determining whether prosecutions of former presidents can proceed. It will be how the decision amplified presidential power just in time for a new administration determined to test its limits.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The decision, ostensibly about the important but limited question of immunity, contained “some of the most far-reaching pronouncements about presidential power in the court’s history,” Jack L. Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard and a former Justice Department official in the administration of President George W. Bush, wrote in “The Presidency After Trump v. United States,” <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5162059" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">a draft article</a> posted last week that is to be published in The Supreme Court Review.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div><div data-testid="Dropzone-1"></div><div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-1"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The opinion, he added, “amounted to perhaps the most consequential disquisition ever on the law of the presidency.”</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, made the case for a vigorous and energetic president whose core responsibilities cannot be constrained by Congress and the courts. “Unlike anyone else,” he wrote, “the president is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.”</p><div class="css-1336jj"><div class="css-121kum4"><div class="css-171quhb"></div><div class="css-asuuk5"><noscript><div class="css-7axq9l" data-testid="optimistic-truncator-noscript"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="css-1b5b8u1" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24" width="24"><path clip-rule="evenodd" d="M2.5 12a9.5 9.5 0 1 1 19 0 9.5 9.5 0 0 1-19 0Zm8.5 1.75v-7.5h2v7.5h-2Zm0 2v2h2v-2h-2Z" fill="currentColor" fill-rule="evenodd"></path></svg><div class="css-6yo1no" data-testid="optimistic-truncator-noscript-message"><p class="css-3kpklk">We are having trouble retrieving the article content.</p><p class="css-3kpklk">Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.</p></div></div></noscript><div class="css-1dv1kvn" id="optimistic-truncator-a11y" tabindex="-1"><hr/><p>Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and <a href="https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&amp;client_id=vi&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F10%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-courts-immunity-ruling-echo.html&amp;asset=opttrunc">log into</a> your Times account, or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F10%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-courts-immunity-ruling-echo.html">subscribe</a> for all of The Times.</p><hr/></div><div class="css-1g71tqy"><svg aria-hidden="true" class="css-63woee" data-testid="optimistic-truncator-spinner" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24" width="24"><g fill="currentColor"><path d="M11.28 22.8a.72.72 0 1 0 1.44 0v-6.72a.72.72 0 1 0-1.44 0v6.72Z" opacity=".37"></path><path d="M17.766 21.16a.72.72 0 1 0 1.165-.846l-3.95-5.436a.72.72 0 1 0-1.165.846l3.95 5.437Z" opacity=".26"></path><path d="M1.506 14.653a.72.72 0 0 0 .445 1.37l6.391-2.078a.72.72 0 1 0-.445-1.369l-6.39 2.077Z" opacity=".61"></path><path d="M5.07 20.314a.72.72 0 0 0 1.164.847l3.95-5.437a.72.72 0 1 0-1.165-.846l-3.95 5.436Z" opacity=".48"></path><path d="M22.049 16.022a.72.72 0 0 0 .445-1.37l-6.391-2.076a.72.72 0 1 0-.445 1.37l6.39 2.076Z" opacity=".17"></path><path d="M22.494 9.347a.72.72 0 1 0-.445-1.37l-6.391 2.078a.72.72 0 1 0 .445 1.369l6.39-2.077Z" opacity=".09"></path><path d="M6.234 2.84a.72.72 0 0 0-1.165.846l3.95 5.436a.72.72 0 0 0 1.165-.846l-3.95-5.437Z" opacity=".87"></path><path d="M1.951 7.978a.72.72 0 1 0-.445 1.37l6.391 2.076a.72.72 0 1 0 .445-1.37l-6.39-2.076Z" opacity=".74"></path><path d="M18.93 3.686a.72.72 0 0 0-1.164-.847l-3.95 5.437a.72.72 0 0 0 1.165.846l3.95-5.436Z" opacity=".02"></path><path d="M12.72 1.2a.72.72 0 1 0-1.44 0v6.72a.72.72 0 0 0 1.44 0V1.2Z"></path></g></svg><div class="css-6yo1no" data-testid="optimistic-truncator-message"><p class="css-3kpklk">Thank you for your patience while we verify access.</p><p class="css-3kpklk">Already a subscriber? <a class="css-z5ryv4" data-testid="log-in-link" href="https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&amp;client_id=vi&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F10%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-courts-immunity-ruling-echo.html&amp;asset=opttrunc">Log in</a>.</p><p class="css-3kpklk">Want all of The Times? <a class="css-z5ryv4" data-testid="subscribe-link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F03%2F10%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-courts-immunity-ruling-echo.html">Subscribe</a>.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div>