Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has introduced legislation that would allow presidents and vice presidents to be prosecuted for federal crimes, effectively undoing the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling.

 The No Kings Act would reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability and ensure the Supreme Court cannot upend that most basic principle again. 

“In America, our democracy is built on the pillar that nobody is above the law — not Members of Congress, not Supreme Court Justices, and not even current or past Presidents,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA). “One month ago, the extremist wing of the Supreme Court shattered that fundamental principle, contradicting American values, our history, and the text of the Constitution. I join the chorus of my Democratic colleagues urging immediate congressional action to correct this dangerous precedent and ensure that any President who has violated criminal law is held accountable.”

Specifically, the No Kings Act would:

• Reaffirm that Presidents and Vice Presidents do not have immunity for actions that violate U.S. criminal law. No President or Vice President (former or sitting) would be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate the criminal laws of the United States. The bill would clarify that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal laws may be applied.

• Remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction for all actions challenging the constitutionality of this legislation. The bill would allow Presidents and Vice Presidents to challenge the constitutionality of the No Kings Act in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Any appeal would be handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Using the Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution, Congress would preclude the Supreme Court from hearing any appeals to these challenges. It would further remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to interfere with any criminal proceedings involving Presidents or Vice Presidents on the basis that an alleged criminal act was an official action.

• Establish additional jurisdictional and procedural guardrails. The bill would allow the United States to bring criminal actions against a President or Vice President in any applicable district court or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It would also create a presumption of constitutionality for the No Kings Act unless a party establishes its unconstitutionality with clear and convincing evidence. Lastly, the bill would create statutes of limitations of 180 days for facial constitutional challenges and 90 days for as-applied constitutional challenges.

In Opposition

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) sided with the Supreme Court and praised the court’s ruling as “a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith.”

“The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts,” Johnson said on X at the time. “This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense.”

Those against it argue that this is nothing more than sour grapes. It is a Democratic Party ploy to counter the wishes of the American people. Many feel that in passing this legislation, Democrats are simply throwing a fit over the fact that they lost recent rulings by the court. This is something that Republicans have dealt with for decades; however, the Republicans did not try to alter the court. A ruling party packing or altering a nation’s highest court is a rare national embarrassment, even in less developed countries.

Should Congress pass S.4973, the "No Kings Act"?