Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a "Regular" President?

"The Donald Trump who exists in the real world—the racist, fascist sexual predator who happily tweets out the illegal and unconstitutional motivations for his policies—does not exist according to the Supreme Court. Instead, the court has invented a different Trump, one who does not speak, does not lie, and adheres to the well-established norms regarding the use of executive power."

"There is a legal doctrine that explains what I believe the Supreme Court is doing: the 'presumption of regularity,' which dates at least as far back as 1926. This doctrine instructs courts to assume that members of the executive branch have acted properly and in good faith. An administration is presumed to have bona fide reasons for its actions, and those actions are assumed not to be 'pretextual.'"

"The presumption of regularity is afforded to members of the executive branch and no one else. Only they can waltz into court and expect people to take them at their word."

The Supreme Court has adopted a legal doctrine called the presumption of regularity, dating to 1926, which instructs courts to assume executive branch members act properly and in good faith. This doctrine presumes actions have legitimate reasons and are not pretextual. Applied to Trump, the Court has effectively invented a fictional president who speaks responsibly, doesn't lie, and respects constitutional norms—a stark contrast to the real Trump who openly tweets illegal motivations and unconstitutional policies. The Court rules as if this fabricated version exists, granting Trump deference typically reserved for executive branch officials. This legal doctrine allows the Court to ignore Trump's actual racist, fascist, and predatory behavior, treating his actions as presumptively legitimate regardless of contradictory evidence.

Read at The Nation