New article by Gillian Metzger in the Harvard Law Review:

This essay analyzes Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States. It argues that, despite surface similarities—not least that they both helped smooth the path to Trump’s re-election as President—the two decisions differ in important ways. In particular, Anderson’s unanimous intuition that federalism principles and national interests may limit a state’s ability to disrupt the presidential election has some precedential basis and structural appeal; the decision also gives Congress a central role in presidential disqualification, while also removing the Supreme Court By contrast, Trump v. United States deviates notably even from the key precedents it cites, expands presidential power significantly, and largely erases Congress from assessments of presidential criminal immunity. The essay concludes that, although flawed, Anderson was a relatively narrow and justified decision whereas Trump v. United States left the presidency dangerously and unjustifiably imbalanced—a result underscored by the alarming first months of Trump’s second term in office.