On July 1, 2024, the Court issued a highly controversial opinion on one of its most anticipated cases in the docket: Trump v. United States. The ruling, which significantly broadened the scope of presidential immunity, has sparked widespread public backlash, with many arguing that it undermines the principle of executive accountability. While these concerns are well-founded, they overlook the decision’s most flagrant flaw: its lack of constitutional grounding.

On November 20, 2001, Rob Andrew was shot and murdered. His estranged wife, Brenda Andrew, and her new partner, James Pavatt, were quickly framed as suspects in the shooting. Though Pavatt ultimately confessed to the shooting, he denied that Brenda Andrew was involved. However, the State still charged Andrew with capital murder; at the trial, the prosecution drew from extensive evidence that depicted Andrew as sexually provocative and morally depraved. Andrew’s sex life became a central issue in the trial, with prosecutors arguing that her sexual history made her a “bad wife, bad mother, and a bad woman.” Andrew was convicted of murdering her husband and sentenced to death.