Constitutional Economy in Crisis?

Abstract

This commentary offers ethnographic reflections on the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. United States, the July 2024 ruling that gave then-former President Trump and all future presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for certain categories of official conduct. Taken together, the text and context of the opinion provide an extended case study in the contemporary meanings of constitutional crisis. The Introduction discusses the concept of crisis, arguing for a comparative approach that, in this instance, juxtaposes the financial crisis of 2008 and current concerns with constitutional crisis. In both settings, investment and risk feature prominently in narratives addressing the knowledge demands of crisis. I develop the concept of constitutional economy to highlight the court’s public legitimacy as an asset that can be invested, traded, gained, or lost, depending on circumstances. The rest of the commentary is in four parts. Part I summarizes the opinion as presented by the majority and dissenting justices. Part II turns to the financial crisis, focusing particularly on the failure of the derivatives market. Part III then draws the two scenarios together, exploring their shared horizons of ritualized discourse, unsecured risk, and uncertain liquidity. The Conclusion asks where fresh liquidity would come from if the constitutional economy goes into default. Overall, the commentary is in dialogue with crisis scholarship along a fold between hope and dread—the tension between these becoming a throughline in its contemplation of unknowable futures.