Trump v. United States
603 U. S. ____ (2024) (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts that fall within his core, exclusive constitutional powers. For all other official acts, a former President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity, which the government must overcome by showing the prosecution poses no danger of intrusion on Executive Branch functions, but no immunity exists for unofficial acts.
Facts:
- Following the November 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald J. Trump publicly claimed there had been outcome-determinative fraud and that he had actually won.
- Trump and his associates allegedly pressured state legislators and election officials in certain states to change electoral votes from his opponent to himself.
- Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly organized and caused fraudulent slates of electors in seven states to transmit false certificates to the Vice President and Congress.
- Trump allegedly attempted to use the Department of Justice to conduct what the indictment calls 'sham' election crime investigations and to send letters to states falsely claiming the Department had identified significant concerns about the election outcome.
- Trump allegedly attempted to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role at the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.
- On the morning of January 6, 2021, Trump held a rally where he allegedly repeated false claims of election fraud and directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.
- After a crowd violently attacked the Capitol, halting the proceeding, Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Trump filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in the District Court, asserting absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office.
- The District Court (a court of first instance) denied Trump's motion, holding that former Presidents do not have immunity from federal criminal prosecution.
- Trump, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's ruling, concluding that former President Trump had no immunity from the criminal charges.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What level of immunity from criminal prosecution does a former President possess for acts performed during his tenure in office?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, C.J.
A former President possesses varying levels of immunity from criminal prosecution depending on the nature of the acts. Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, a former President has absolute immunity for acts within his core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The need for a vigorous and energetic Executive requires shielding presidential decision-making from the chilling effect of potential future prosecutions. For acts involving the President's exclusive constitutional authority (e.g., pardon power, removal of executive officers), Congress cannot legislate and courts cannot review, making prosecution impermissible. For other official acts, the threat of criminal prosecution is a greater deterrent than civil liability, justifying at least a presumptive immunity to prevent the distortion of Presidential decision-making. The government can rebut this presumption only by showing that the prosecution poses no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.' However, no immunity exists for unofficial conduct, as the justifications for immunity are tied to the function of the office, not the individual. The case is remanded for the District Court to apply this new framework by distinguishing between official and unofficial acts alleged in the indictment.
Concurring - Thomas, J.
I join the Court's opinion establishing presidential immunity for official acts. I write separately to highlight another potential constitutional defect in this prosecution: whether the office of the Special Counsel was properly 'established by Law' as required by the Appointments Clause of Article II. This threshold question of the prosecutor's authority is a serious constitutional issue that the lower courts should resolve before the case proceeds further.
Concurring - Barrett, J.
I agree with the Court's judgment but would frame the issue differently. Rather than an 'immunity,' the President possesses a right to challenge a criminal statute as-applied to his official conduct on separation of powers grounds and to obtain pre-trial appellate review of that challenge. While I agree that core executive powers are protected, I would have held now that most other official acts are not immune from prosecution. I also disagree with the majority's conclusion in Part III-C that evidence of immune official acts cannot be used in a trial for unofficial acts; traditional rules of evidence are sufficient to manage any potential prejudice, and juries may need to hear about an official act to understand the context of a related private crime, such as bribery.
Dissenting - Sotomayor, J.
A former President does not possess immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The majority's decision reshapes the Presidency and 'makes a mockery of the principle... that no man is above the law.' The Constitution's text contains no such immunity; in fact, the Impeachment Judgment Clause presumes criminal liability is available. History, precedent, and over two centuries of practice confirm that former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law. The majority's reliance on the civil immunity recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald is misplaced, as the public interest in criminal prosecution is far weightier and the criminal justice system's procedural safeguards protect against vexatious litigation. The immunity framework invented by the majority is atextual, ahistorical, and will have disastrous consequences for our democracy.
Dissenting - Jackson, J.
A former President does not possess immunity. I agree entirely with Justice Sotomayor's dissent and write to explain the theoretical shift the majority makes today. The Court discards our nation's traditional 'individual accountability model,' where the law applies equally to all, for a new 'Presidential accountability model,' which exempts the President from the law's reach. This new paradigm aggrandizes the power of the Judiciary and the Executive at the expense of Congress and the rule of law. By creating an indeterminate, multi-part test for immunity, the Court makes itself the ultimate arbiter of which laws apply to the President, undermining legal constraints and inviting future abuses of power.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes for the first time that former Presidents possess some form of constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts. By creating a new, three-tiered analytical framework (core powers, other official acts, unofficial acts), the Court has opened the door to significant further litigation to define the boundaries of each category. While rejecting the claim of absolute immunity for all official acts, the high bar set for overcoming presumptive immunity for non-core official acts will likely make such prosecutions exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The ruling fundamentally alters the concept of presidential accountability and shifts the balance of power by creating a judicial backstop against the criminal prosecution of the Executive for conduct in office.
