Trump v. United States
603 U.S. 593 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the constitutional structure of separated powers, a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his other official acts, but not for unofficial acts.
Facts:
- Donald J. Trump served as President of the United States from January 2017 to January 2021.
- Following the November 2020 election, Trump allegedly conspired to overturn the election results by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud.
- Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly attempted to pressure state officials to change electoral votes and organized fraudulent slates of electors in several states.
- Trump allegedly leveraged the Justice Department's authority to conduct sham election fraud investigations and attempted to replace the Acting Attorney General when his requests were resisted.
- Trump allegedly attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.
- On the morning of January 6, Trump allegedly made public statements to gathered supporters, falsely claiming election fraud and directing them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.
- Trump moved to dismiss the indictment in the District Court for the District of Columbia, based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
- The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.
- Trump appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss, concluding that Trump had no structural immunity from the charges.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from federal criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, a former President is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken during his tenure in office, with absolute immunity for acts within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. The Court notes this is the first criminal prosecution of a former President for actions during his Presidency, necessitating a careful assessment of Presidential power under the Constitution. The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority (e.g., pardon power, removal of executive officers, foreign recognition), as Congress cannot criminalize and courts cannot examine such actions. Trump's alleged discussions with Justice Department officials regarding election investigations and his threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General fall under this category due to the executive's exclusive authority over investigations, prosecutions, and management of the Executive Branch. For other official acts, the Court finds that criminal prosecution poses a greater threat to Presidential decision-making (chilling 'bold and unhesitating action') than civil suits, and balances this against the public interest in law enforcement. Thus, separation of powers requires at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the 'outer perimeter' of responsibility, rebuttable only if the government shows 'no dangers of intrusion' on Executive Branch functions. The Court remands for lower courts to apply this standard to Trump's interactions with the Vice President regarding the January 6 certification and his public statements to state officials and the public. The Court reaffirms that there is no immunity for unofficial acts, as established in Clinton v. Jones. It rejects Trump's argument that the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires impeachment and conviction to precede criminal prosecution. Finally, the Court holds that official conduct for which a President is immune cannot be scrutinized or admitted as evidence at trial to prove liability, even for charges based on unofficial conduct.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas concurs, agreeing that criminal prosecution of a former President for official acts severely threatens the constitutional order and necessitates immunity. He writes separately to highlight a potential constitutional flaw in the Special Counsel's appointment. He argues that the office of Special Counsel may not have been 'established by Law' as Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 requires, stressing that Congress, not the President, must create federal offices by statute. He finds the general statutes cited by the Attorney General insufficient to clearly establish such an office, unlike historical precedents where Congress explicitly created special counsel roles. If the office is not properly established, he contends, the Special Counsel lacks the authority to proceed with the prosecution, questioning the legitimacy of this unprecedented criminal proceeding.
Concurring_in_part - Justice Barrett
Justice Barrett concurs in part, agreeing that Congress cannot criminalize a President's exercise of core Article II powers and closely related conduct, and that interlocutory review of immunity claims is appropriate. However, she would have directly stated that the Constitution does not forbid prosecuting the President for most official conduct that falls outside his 'conclusive and preclusive' authority, as Congress has concurrent authority over many government functions. She proposes a two-step analysis: first, whether the criminal statute applies to the President's official conduct, and second, whether its application unconstitutionally intrudes on executive power. She explicitly disagrees with Part III-C of the majority opinion, arguing that the Constitution does not limit the introduction of protected conduct as evidence beyond what executive privilege allows, and that existing rules of evidence (e.g., Fed. Rule Evid. 403) and jury instructions are sufficient to manage potential prejudice.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
No, a former President does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts; such immunity is an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable invention that places the President above the law. Justice Sotomayor argues the majority's decision 'makes a mockery of the principle...that no man is above the law.' She notes the Constitution lacks any provision for Presidential criminal immunity, unlike the explicit, narrow immunity for legislators. Historical evidence, including Alexander Hamilton's writings and the Impeachment Judgment Clause, suggests former Presidents are 'liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.' She cites the Nixon pardon and special counsel investigations as evidence of a historical understanding that former Presidents face criminal liability. She criticizes the majority's expansive definition of 'official acts' and its rejection of motive inquiry as effectively nullifying the category of 'unofficial' conduct. She argues that the Nixon v. Fitzgerald balancing test, when correctly applied to criminal prosecutions, mandates the opposite result due to the far weightier public interest in criminal law enforcement and the robust safeguards in criminal proceedings that mitigate any chilling effect. She warns that the ruling creates a 'law-free zone around the President' where egregious abuses of power could be immune, and finds the majority's evidentiary limits on protected conduct unprecedented and illogical.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
No, the majority's creation of immunity for a former President's official acts fundamentally alters the paradigm of accountability and undermines the Rule of Law. Justice Jackson fully agrees with Justice Sotomayor, explaining that immunity is an 'exemption' from law, a concept our Republic rejected. She argues the traditional 'individual accountability model' holds everyone, including Presidents, accountable. In contrast, the majority invents a 'Presidential accountability model' with a complex, indeterminate threshold immunity evaluation based on 'core,' 'official,' and 'unofficial' act categories. This makes it 'next to impossible to know ex ante when and under what circumstances a President will be subject to accountability.' She argues this new model removes Congress's authority to bind the President through criminal laws, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and Executive, and undermines deterrence. She warns that it incentivizes future Presidents to 'cross the line of criminality' by lifting constraints on official actions, even for egregious behavior. She concludes that the Court 'has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.'
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly redefines the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, creating new, complex legal frameworks for evaluating such claims. By establishing absolute immunity for 'core constitutional powers' and at least presumptive immunity for other 'official acts,' the Court substantially elevates the legal protections afforded to former Presidents, potentially insulating them from accountability for a wide range of conduct. The ruling's emphasis on preventing a 'chilling effect' on executive decision-making signals a strong institutional protection of the presidency, but at the cost of perceived executive accountability under the criminal law, which critics argue could incentivize future abuses of power. The remand requires lower courts to undertake a fact-intensive, unprecedented classification of alleged presidential actions, which will likely lead to further litigation and appeals and shape the future application of this immunity doctrine.
