The U.S. judicial system is more than a referee for private disputes. Courts also shape how the three branches of government balance power, and they set limits on what officials can and cannot do. Understanding these relationships explains why the judiciary matters to every citizen. These checks and balances are not abstract—they affect how laws are enforced, how leaders are held accountable, and how individual liberties and rights are protected. The judiciary can play a central role in ensuring no one is above the law and that the rules of democracy apply fairly to all, regardless of whether you lean right, left, or center. In this context, the concept of immunity interacts with the concept of accountability.
Presidential immunity: The courts have recognized that presidents have some protections while in office, though not absolute immunity. Following Trump v. United States, 2024, this immunity also extends to presidents after they leave office, particularly for acts within their core constitutional authority.
Qualified immunity: This doctrine shields many government officials, from federal cabinet officials to local police officers, from personal liability unless they clearly violate a constitutional right that was already clearly established by existing precedent at the time of the incident. (See also “stare decisis” described in “Uniform Justice” below.) Supporters argue it prevents frivolous lawsuits; critics say it makes accountability too hard to achieve.
For a deeper discussion, see also Part 6 of our course on the presidency.
Next week, we will look at how Congress and the judiciary deal with lawmaking.
