“For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,” Biden said, adding that he pledges “to respect the limits of the presidential powers.”

The president also noted that the decision means that it is “highly unlikely” that Trump would be prosecuted before the election in November, which he called “a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.”

“So now, the American people have to do what the courts should have been willing to do, but will not,” Biden said. “The American people must decide whether Donald Trump’s assault on our democracy on January 6th makes him unfit for public office in the highest office in the land.”

At a time when he is under scrutiny following a poor debate performance that has caused Democrats to question his stamina, Biden continued to focus on Trump and sought to crystallize the choice before the electorate.

“The American people must decide if Trump’s embrace of violence to preserve his power is acceptable,” he said. “Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the presidency once again to Donald Trump — now, knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”

The comments marked a rare rebuke of the justice system for Biden, who has sought to distinguish his presidency by attempting to restore faith in American institutions. But Biden — who, as a senator, was a longtime chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing Supreme Court nomination hearings — has also found himself at odds with some of its recent decisions, including most prominently the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe v. Wade and declared there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

“This decision today has continued the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said in his White House remarks.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) accused Biden of improperly attacking the judiciary. “What we’re seeing tonight is despicable and dangerous,” Johnson told Fox News. “The president has been trying to undermine our legal system.”

At the start of his comments, Biden reflected on the potentially sweeping effects the decision could have on the conduct of future presidents.

“The presidency is the most powerful office in the world,” he said. “It’s an office that not only tests your judgment — perhaps even more importantly, it’s an office that could test your character. Because you’re not only faced with moments where you need the courage to exercise the full power of the presidency, you also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency.”

Toward the end of his remarks, Biden aimed to place the ruling in the context of history, reaching back to the founding of the nation.

“At the outset of our nation, it was the character of George Washington, our first president, to define the presidency. He believed power was limited, not absolute, and that power always resides with the people — always,” Biden said. “Now, over 200 years later today, the Supreme Court decision means that once again, it will depend on the character of the men and women who hold the presidency … because the law will no longer do it.”

He ended with a new line, saying, “May God bless you all. And may God help preserve our democracy.” Then, he added, “May God protect our troops.”

He then left the room, ignoring the shouted questions about the state of his campaign.

(On July 3, the Institute will stage its “NOI+F Takeover,” an all-day program of performances at the National Gallery of Art.)

The program paired Jennifer Higdon’s atmospheric, elegiac “blue cathedral” (which has received more than 1,000 performances as it approaches its 25th anniversary) with Beethoven’s own architectural wonder, his “Symphony No. 9 in D Minor” of 1824, for which the orchestra was joined by the Heritage Signature Chorale (directed by Stanley J. Thurston) and a quartet of soloists.

Of special note with this particular account of the Ninth was its replacement of Friedrich Schiller’s 1785 poem “Ode to Joy” with a new English text by former U.S. poet laureate Tracy K. Smith. Originally commissioned by Carnegie Hall for a program celebrating the 250th anniversary of Beethoven’s birth, Smith’s adaptation of Schiller’s poem widens its scope while (for the most part) retaining its themes.

Anyone who has ever heard Jennifer Higdon’s “blue cathedral” has likely wondered for a moment how it might sound in such a setting. A musical remembrance of her younger brother Andrew Blue (who died in 1998 of skin cancer), it’s also an attempt by Higdon to evoke “a journey through a glass cathedral in the sky” — an effect achieved through a sustained lightness and translucence in the music’s textures.

Alsop gently roused the piece — its rustle of chimes and bleary strings. The flute (representing Jennifer, and played by Honor Hickman) appears first, trailed by clarinet (Andrew, played by Yoomin Sung), their melodies pointing up at the clouds. As the piece builds, it broadens, and Alsop kept tight control, leaving room for individual instruments to push through a glowing mass of strings and woodwinds. In the end, Higdon returns to a game of hide-and-seek that’s both playful and mournful, with strings that sag like willows and a low mist of returning/departing chimes.

It was a fine performance against steep acoustic odds. You’d never guess it was Alsop’s first time conducting here.

The conditions of the cathedral may have worked more to Higdon’s advantage than Beethoven’s. Though Alsop masterfully marshaled focus and ferocity from her players, the spectacular heights of the space sometimes made for a sonic soup — long tails of reverb that complicated crisp intentions; fluid passages of strings often frothed into the equivalent of white water; and a powerful Heritage Signature Chorale couldn’t help but overrun the orchestra’s banks.

Still, the opening of the first movement (“Allegro ma non troppo, un poco maestoso”) sounded particularly thrilling rushing through the nave like the forefront of a flash flood. Splendid flutes and oboes left dramatic trails, as did its declarative finish, which hung in the air and commanded a respectful silence.

Just after the iconic opening outburst of the second movement, Alsop put finger to lips, treading lightly with the orchestra into its thickening thicket before letting its free, whirling energy take over (i.e. the “Molto Vivace”). Bright plumes of flute lit up the place before a whiter-knuckled repeat that sounded like it was in a hurry. The cathedral blurs, but it also deconstructs: I’ve never heard the trumpets in this movement sound quite so distant (or full of character), or a single timpani sound so cavernous (or more like a void). I especially enjoyed nimble (if overly eager) playing from the horns and clarinets. Toward the movement’s end, things started to fray, and Beethoven’s call for unity felt suddenly more pressing.

Concertmaster Sultan Rakhmatullin brought naturalistic phrasing and endearing sensitivity to third movement solos, with Alsop keeping the back-and-forth between strings and woodwinds disarmingly conversational. Here, the space felt uncannily suited to the music’s slow dissolves and diffuse colors — the horns and clarinets were especially entrancing.

The chorus of responsorial cellos that open the fourth movement was exquisite — both ghostly and urgent, present and not. From here, the “Ode to Joy” theme begins its journey through articulations — not least of which is Smith’s.

Through the hand of the former poet laureate, Schiller’s call for all men to unite as brothers is refined into a more explicit desire to “bid us past such fear and hate.” His invitation to those who know “abiding friendships” is extended by Smith to anyone whose “spirit is invested/ In another’s sense of worth.” And Schiller’s embrace of millions is amplified and updated to terms decisively more grim: “Battered planet, home of billions/ our long shadow stalks your face.” Smith turns Schiller’s gaze from the “starry canopy” to the “fractured” planet below, and begs for forgiveness.

Of course, you might not have known any of this had you just been sitting and listening: The new text wasn’t supplied on paper nor projected through titles on any of the many screens installed around the nave. Smith’s adaptation is melodically (even syllabically) faithful to the original, but despite beautiful turns and ensemble singing from soprano Adia Evans, mezzo-soprano Jazmine Olwalia, tenor Lawrence Barasa Kiharangwa and bass Kevin Short, the words themselves were lost in the sonic wash of the cathedral.

Short’s introduction (“O friend, my heart has tired/ Of such darkness./ Now it vies for joy”) was a stunning display of his instrument and its ability to find every corner of the cathedral. An energized Kiharangwa delivered a steely solo over the movement’s “Turkish March.” Evans and Olwalia each gave brilliant turns, their voices often coiling into a golden braid. And the Heritage Signature Chorale illuminated the long choral corridors of the movement’s core — a monumental sound.

With everything turned to 11, Alsop and company barreled through the finish — at barely 60 minutes, this was a conspicuously brisk Ninth. And the sound of the extended ovation met the orchestra’s energy: With 2,300 tickets sold, this was the largest concert the cathedral has presented in at least a decade. Environmental penitence and fuzzy edges aside, the “Ode to Joy” remained the ecstatic cataclysm it can’t help but be.

(If you missed this concert and it’s just not summer without a dose of the 9th, the National Symphony Orchestra will offer its own account on July 12 at Wolf Trap, led by conductor Ruth Reinhardt and featuring violinist Njioma Grevious, soprano Keely Futterer, mezzo-soprano Gabrielle Beteag, tenor Ricardo Garcia, baritone Blake Denson and the Cathedral Choral Society led by music director Steven Fox.)

As a result of her vote, the court’s majority left prosecutions of felon and former president Donald Trump unchanged (for now) and severely limited any impact on hundreds of other Jan. 6 insurrection cases. A tiny fraction of the Jan. 6 defendants will actually be affected.

The obstruction statute 18 U.S.C. Section 1512 (c)(1), at issue in many Jan. 6 cases, prohibits “altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” The court had to decide what actions are covered by the subsequent Section 1512(c)(2), which penalizes conduct that “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

What does “otherwise” mean? The court declined to either take the broadest or most narrow definition available. Instead, it held:

As we have explained, subsection (c)(1) refers to a defined set of offense conduct — four types of actions that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an official proceeding. When the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” is read as having been given more precise content by that narrower list of conduct, subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding in ways other than those specified in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence — rather than altering incriminating evidence.

The crimes, such as creating false documents (say, phony electoral ballots), are covered, but general obstruction activities are not. The crime must be tethered to the objects and/or documents at issue in the proceeding.

The key to understanding the decision is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence. She explained exactly what the court did:

Joseph Fischer was charged with violating §1512(c)(2) by corruptly obstructing “a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral college vote.” That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects — including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed.

In other words, even this defendant might still be convicted of conduct related to records, documents or objects in the congressional proceeding if he was seeking to destroy the electoral ballots. (Fischer was also charged with other conduct under other statutes.)

“As Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion makes clear, the Court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c) is still broad enough to cover Fischer’s alleged conduct,” constitutional scholar Matthew Seligman, who authored an amicus brief for the case told me. “By violently storming the Capitol, the violent Jan. 6 rioters impaired the availability of the electoral certificates that Congress convened to count — Senate staffers had to flee the building with the certificates so they weren’t destroyed.” In short, Seligman concludes that “while the Court narrowed the government’s expansive interpretation, it did so in a way that will affect few — if any — actual Jan. 6 cases.”

In other words, creating electoral vote slates (as Trump allegedly did) would still be prosecutable. This decision therefore has essentially no impact on Trump, who was charged with four criminal counts including 1512(c)(2) and conspiracy to violate 1512(c)(2). His alleged involvement in concocting false electoral slates falls four-square within the court’s ruling. (Depending on the fine print, the court’s immunity case could still restrict his prosecution.)

As for the rest of the Jan. 6 insurrection defendants, the Justice Department in a statement released after the decision made clear: “The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer.”

Just Security co-founder Ryan Goodman explains how the media exaggerated the impact of Fischer. “A quarter of [the defendants] pleaded guilty but NOT to obstruction,” he emphasized. “They pleaded to other charges. Those charges and those sentences are utterly unaffected by Supreme Court’s ruling.” It is really a sliver of a sliver who might be affected.

For example, all 128 people convicted at trial under 1512(c)(2) were also convicted of other crimes. At worst, they would need to be resentenced if their 1512(c)(2) conduct did not fall within the Supreme Court’s opinion. Beyond that, the legal gurus at Just Security found that for the “71 defendants who have been charged under Section 1512(c)(2) and are still awaiting trial, all of them are charged with crimes in addition to 1512(c)(2), and a majority are charged with one or more other felonies.” Depending on the facts, their 1512(c)(2) charge could either be dropped or their sentencing could proceed as charged.

Of the very small number of defendants (48) who pleaded to obstruction under 1512(c)(2), 22 were also charged with another felony. The other 26 pleaded just to a 1512(c)(2) count; all but 11 of those could be charged with another felony such as civil disorder and theft of government property.

A grand total of 11 defendants — who pleaded only to a 1512(c)(2) offense with no other felonies available — conceivably might have those reduced to misdemeanors. (There are also a group of 73 people either convicted at trial or waiting for trial on 1512(c)(2) plus one or more misdemeanors.) That is it. Fischer in no way opens the prison doors, and it certainly gives Trump absolutely no comfort.

This is not to tout the reasonableness of the right-wing majority. Having snatched immense powers from the executive branch and Congress this term, the court’s unbridled activism is undeniable. We certainly have seen an untrammeled imperial court dragging government back to the 1920s (on nonregulation of air, water, workplace safety, etc.) and individual rights to the 19th century. It has run roughshod over our democracy, which empowers the people’s elected representatives to make policy decisions. Rather, Fischer stands as a lonely exception, an example of judicial finesse.

Two points deserve further mention. Most vividly, this case serves as yet another glaring example of the mainstream media’s rush to hysterical conclusions. Overwrought headlines after the decision came down suggested hundreds of cases would be overturned. Those were inaccurate. Precision should take precedence over clickbait. Second, if Trump gets more appointees for the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal bench in a second term, there might be no brake on the damage this court can do. The prospect that the court could get worse should send chills up and down the spines of all Americans.