Then Nadine Seiler arrived. She wheeled her cart toward the courthouse, music blaring and flags flying. Her speaker played the chorus of a song called “Shame on You” over and over, the singer’s chants of “shame, shame, shame” audible for the entire block.
The flags flying from her cart and the heaps of signs inside boasted messages such as “Trump=loser” and “You can’t vote for president as a felon but you can run for and be president.”
“America goes around the world, pointing our fingers at every country in the world, telling them about democracy, and here we are, the laughingstock of the world that we have a convicted felon … running for the highest office in the land,” said Seiler, a 59-year-old home organizer who has been demonstrating against Trump since the 2017 Women’s March.
Wearing her “TrumpsterFire” T-shirt bearing a flaming trash can topped with what looked like Trump’s signature hairstyle, Seiler said she hoped the Supreme Court would rule against granting Trump immunity from prosecution.
“I want them to follow the law. I want them to stop being an arm of the GOP,” Seiler said.
By 9:45 a.m., a crowd gathered in front of the court. While some people carried banners and chanted, others observed from the sidewalk. Among them were John Stiles, 43, and his 12-year-old daughter, Sadie.
Sadie excitedly snapped pictures of the Supreme Court building, standing on her tiptoes and reaching her arms up to try to get a picture of the building unobstructed by protesters.
“Let me teach you something,” her father said. “The people are part of the scene.”
The pair were visiting D.C. from Chicago, and when Stiles heard of the impending Supreme Court decision, he decided to take his daughter to witness a piece of history.
“It’s a pivotal thing, and we just have luck to be passing through at the right time,” Stiles said. “It’s going to have some lasting ramifications that she might not understand right now, but I think it’ll definitely come up in the future as something that’s pointed back to as far as accountability.”
Sadie said she was excited to tell her friends she saw the announcement of a Supreme Court decision. When asked what she’s looking forward to hearing today, Sadie answered simply, “That he’s not immune.”
The terse muttering among the crowd increased with every minute past 10 a.m., when the court typically begins issuing opinions.
About half an hour later, a man’s voice cut across the crowd. “No immunity!” he yelled, missing the nuance of the ruling.
Cheers erupted, and people embraced one another. Celeste McCall, an 80-year-old wearing a pink “Kittens Against Trump” T-shirt, made a call.
“No immunity, no immunity,” McCall told her husband. “Anyway, I’ll be home shortly. Love you.”
The jubilance faded quickly. People started to check their phones and read the ruling for themselves. The decision was not as clear-cut as the crowd initially believed. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines said that “a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,’” but that “there is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
“Wait a minute, I’m confused,” McCall said. “No immunity for unofficial acts. … What does that even mean?”
McCall deflated, realizing the ruling may not be as favorable for her as she first believed. She turned to Nan Raphael — her friend since they met working on John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign — to try to process the decision.
Although disappointed, Raphael said she was unsurprised that the court did not outright refuse Trump immunity.
“People don’t have high expectations for this court because it’s become a little too politicized and they’re not supposed to be,” Raphael said.
McCall echoed disillusionment with the Supreme Court.
“If only Ruth Ginsburg, whom we adore, had retired when we had a chance to at least have a fair, level playing field,” McCall said.
In just minutes, the celebratory crowd had turned significantly more subdued. When asked about their new understanding of the ruling, Raphael said she feared the Supreme Court may be “clearing the path for a dictatorship.”
“I’m concerned, very concerned,” McCall said. “I’m apprehensive.”
Walking away from the courthouse, Noel Evans shook his head. Monday’s decision confirmed a feeling he said had been building for years: He could not trust the Supreme Court.
“It’s a shame how this court has conducted itself; it’s a tragedy,” said Evans, 55. “The court has once again abdicated their responsibility.”
The high court’s decision on presidential immunity means the trial judge will determine what constitutes unofficial or official acts, making it unlikely that Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, will be tried before the November election.
“What they’ve done, effectively, by kicking this case down the road is they’ve given him a win because he will not be tried before the election,” Evans said.
Despite his lack of faith in the Supreme Court, Evans said he will continue to keep up with rulings and speak out when he disagrees. He showed up Monday as part of his civic duty, he said.
“Democracy is participatory,” Evans said. “We have an obligation to be involved, and if we don’t, it makes things like this easier to happen without much pushback.”
