Trump v. United States
603 U. S. ____ (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A former President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts taken pursuant to his core constitutional powers, is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and has no immunity for unofficial acts. Courts must distinguish between official and unofficial acts to determine the scope of immunity, without inquiring into the President's motives.
Facts:
- After losing the November 2020 presidential election, Donald J. Trump knowingly spread false claims of widespread election fraud.
- Trump and his co-conspirators pressured state legislators and election officials in several key states to illegally change electoral votes from his opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to himself.
- Trump and his team organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven states and instructed them to transmit false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials for the January 6 certification proceeding.
- Trump attempted to leverage the Department of Justice to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send letters to states falsely claiming the department had identified outcome-determinative fraud.
- Trump repeatedly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification to fraudulently alter the election results by rejecting or returning legitimate electoral votes.
- On January 6, 2021, Trump repeated false claims to a gathered crowd of supporters, directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding, and later exploited the ensuing violent attack to further pressure lawmakers to delay the certification.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
- Trump moved to dismiss the indictment in the trial court, arguing for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
- The U.S. District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.
- Trump, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Whether and to what extent does a former President enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, a former President enjoys a tiered immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts. A former President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for acts within his exclusive, core constitutional authority; is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts; and has no immunity for unofficial acts. The separation of powers requires this protection to ensure a vigorous and independent Executive, preventing the chilling effect of potential politically motivated prosecutions from distorting presidential decision-making. The court identifies communications with the Justice Department regarding investigations and removals as core powers subject to absolute immunity. The case is remanded for the lower courts to distinguish between Trump's other official and unofficial acts and to determine if the presumptive immunity for any official acts is rebutted.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion in full but wrote separately to raise concerns about the constitutional validity of the Special Counsel's appointment. He argued that the office of the Special Counsel may not have been properly 'established by Law' as required by the Appointments Clause, and urged the lower courts to address this threshold issue before the prosecution proceeds.
Concurring in part - Justice Barrett
Yes, but this protection is better framed as an as-applied constitutional challenge to a criminal statute rather than as a broad 'immunity.' Justice Barrett agreed that a President cannot be prosecuted for exercising core Article II powers but argued that for most other official acts, the court should conduct a two-step analysis: first, whether the criminal statute reaches the conduct, and second, whether its application unconstitutionally intrudes on executive power. She disagreed with Part III–C of the majority opinion, which limits the evidentiary use of immune conduct, arguing that standard evidentiary rules are sufficient to manage potential prejudice.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
No, a former President does not enjoy criminal immunity for his official acts. The majority invents an atextual and ahistorical immunity that places the President above the law, contrary to the foundational principles of the Republic. The Constitution's text, the Framers' intent, and over two centuries of historical practice demonstrate that former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law. The majority's functionalist concerns about chilling presidential action are overstated and are outweighed by the compelling public interest in accountability and the rule of law.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
No. Justice Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent and wrote separately to explain how the majority's decision creates a new, dangerous 'Presidential accountability model' that replaces the traditional 'individual accountability model' under which no one is above the law. The new model aggrandizes the power of the Presidency and the Judiciary at the expense of Congress and the rule of law, creating an indeterminate standard that will undermine the law's deterrent effect and invite future Presidents to abuse their power.
Analysis:
This decision establishes for the first time that former Presidents possess some level of immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts. By creating a tiered immunity framework—absolute for core powers, presumptive for other official acts—the Court significantly alters the landscape of executive accountability. The ruling creates a new, complex threshold inquiry for any future prosecution of a former President, requiring lower courts to engage in difficult line-drawing between official and unofficial conduct. This precedent will likely shield certain executive actions from criminal review and could influence how future Presidents exercise their authority, potentially emboldening them while also creating significant litigation hurdles for prosecutors.
