A tale of two 'Royals' and the Lady Justice
From Washington to London, recent events involving Donald Trump and Prince Andrew offer a powerful reminder that in functioning democracies, even the most powerful must answer to the law
The US "mad king" Donald Trump and UK's disgraced former prince Andrew hit the world media headlines, albeit for different reasons, not by any virtuous task, but by their alleged abuse of powers.
The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Trump's far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a stinging loss that sparked a furious attack on the court he helped shape.
Just the previous day, UK police arrested Andrew on suspicion of misconduct in office following weeks of new revelations over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He was released from police custody 11 hours later. Police said later in a statement he has been neither charged nor exonerated.
The underlying message in both the cases is the same: neither the king nor the prince is above the law. Two instances from either side of the Atlantic-- US and UK-- have become the latest glaring example of how the rule of law functions in a country, in a democracy.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
It is a fresh reminder that those days had gone with the wind a few hundred years ago when the king was not only above the law, but the king was the law as King Louis XIV of France in 1655 pronounced with pride: "I am the state."
Why did the US Supreme Court stand against Trump's trade war against the rest of the world though he claimed his tariff war is to make America great again?
The reasoning is simple.
"The court's ruling found tariffs that Trump imposed under an emergency powers law were unconstitutional, including the sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs he levied on nearly every other country," says AP report.
The report says tariffs, though, were the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the Supreme Court for a final ruling, after lower courts had also sided against the president, dubbed as "Mad King" by many international media.
The majority justices, precisely 6-3, found that it is unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. "The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
It is a fresh reminder that those days had gone with the wind a few hundred years ago when the king was not only above the law, but the king was the law.
Like before, the verdict once again upheld the supremacy of the constitution. It reminded the principle once again, "no taxation with representation" which fueled the American independence war against the British in 1765.
The US Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the constitution throughout its history, starting with Marbury versus Madison case in 1803 which pronounced "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void."
With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury versus Madison case established the apex court's role in the new government. The Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.
The Friday ruling is a big blow to Trump's foreign policy "might is right" which held US 'foreign policy' to the 'mad king's whims."
Reactions of 'Two Kings'
The reactions of the two kings--"Mad king" Trump and the king of the United Kingdom, Charles, were contrasting after both incidents.
After the arrest of his brother, King Charles issued a statement the same day delivering a strong message: "Let me state clearly: the law must take its course."
The king was not aware before Andrew's arrest.
"I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation."
"As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all,' said King Charles, who became king upon his mother's death in 2022.
No sympathetic word came from Buckingham Palace for Prince Andrew.
But from the other side of the Atlantic, Trump did not like the police action in the UK and was worried about the reputation of the UK royal family.
Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said the arrest was "very sad."
"I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's very, very sad — to me, it's a very sad thing when I see that," said Donald Trump whose current regime is now being compared with "James Madison's worst nightmare."
Trump met Andrew numerous times, and hosted him at Mar-a-Lago at a party in February 2000, where Andrew was also pictured with Jeffrey Epstein.
Friday's apex court ruling made Trump furious as his court ruling appeared to be a big constraint on the president to exercise the executive powers according to his own will.
He lashed out in unusually personal terms against the six apex court justices who handed him one of the biggest setbacks of his second term in office, says BBC.
The court's Friday ruling was "deeply disappointing". The justices who joined the majority opinion should be "absolutely ashamed" and lacked the courage to "do the right thing", Trump said at the White House hours after the court ruling.
The report says the broadside was remarkable even for a president known for blowing past political norms and publicly berating those who challenge his authority. Trump, while criticising the ruling, made the case that he would find other methods to continue imposing tariffs on other countries. Throughout the press conference, he repeatedly returned to the justices in ways that made clear he felt personally slighted by the decision, according to BBC.
Of the two kings—one known as "mad king" is the president of US democracy and the other is a king of democratic monarchy which is primarily a ceremonial, symbolic institution, operating as a constitutional monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule.
There have been 63 monarchs of England and Britain spread over a period of approximately 1200 years. But history took a new turn following the 'Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689, following which parliament passed landmark legislation: the Act of Settlement in 1701 establishing the constitutional monarchy.
The arrest of Andrew came as an embarrassment for the British people too. The government is considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession.
Currently he remains eighth in line to the throne despite being stripped of his titles, including "prince", last October amid pressure over his ties to Epstein.
A hundred years after the "Glorious Revolution," the US emerged as an independent British colony. Its constitution officially came into effect on March 4, 1789 which introduced a strong mechanism of check and balances of powers.
But Trump's reelection as president brought a big threat to the system developed by the US constitution.
Friday's verdict however, as many experts believe, may help to chain in the "mad king."
In 2024, in a stark dissent from the conservative-majority US Supreme Court's opinion granting Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision was a "mockery" that makes a president a "king above the law".
Lady Justice
People at large are known to the statue of a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. It is a symbol imprinted in our collective psyche. This statue of Lady Justice, for centuries, has stood to represent the principle that the law is blind. It is an iconic allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems, symbolizing impartiality, fairness, and authority.
In the USA, the Lady Justice statues are located throughout the country, primarily adorning courthouses and government buildings as symbols of fair law. Major examples include the Spirit of Justice in the Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C., the Justice and History sculpture at the U.S. Capitol, and statues in Salem, Oregon, Alexandria, Virginia, and New York City, according to Wikipedia.
The iconic 12-foot bronze statue of Lady Justice is located on top of the dome of the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) in London, UK.
In Bangladesh, the Lady Justice statue was initially installed in front of the Supreme Court building in 2017. But it was taken down amid tight security after months of protests by religious groups. Reinstalled in 2017 after removal due to protests, it stands at the back of the top court's building, depicted as a Bengali woman in a sari, symbolizing a modern interpretation of Themis.
In the current political context, her return to the front of the apex court will remain uncertain for indefinite period. Her fate seems to resemble the story of women during and post-uprising Bangladesh.
State of Rule of Law
The principle the US Supreme Court applied to strike down the Trump tariffs—the supremacy of the constitution is similar to the one in Bangladesh constitution that "No tax shall be levied or collected except by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament."
Like in the US, the constitution of Bangladesh also holds supremacy.
But reality looks gloomy. Bangladesh did not have a functional parliament for more than a decade. The constitutional supremacy has been undermined both by the partisan governments and lastly the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus.
The fundamental principle of the rule of law—everyone is equal in the eye of law—that has been enforced by the UK police while arresting Andrew.
Where does Bangladesh stand on the rule of law index of the World Justice Project? Bangladesh ranked 125 of 142 countries on the rule of index of 2025.
What about two other countries—the US and the UK? US ranked 27 while UK 14 on the index, far above Bangladesh. The similar results are seen in other indexes such as press freedom, corruption perception and economic freedom. Bangladesh always stands at the bottom.
On the freedom of the world 2025 index, the US and UK were categorized as free countries with scores 84 and 92 out of 100. Bangladesh has been recognized as a partly free country as before.
In both the US and UK, institutions are strong through which check and balances are enforced.
Bangladesh stands in opposition, having a fragile state of institutions. Herculean tasks lie ahead for Bangladesh as it wants to become a country run by the rule of law, not by "whims" and "vengeance" of past leaders in power.
