United States v. Trump
Argued January 9, 2024 Decided February 6, 2024 (2024)
Rule of Law:
A former President of the United States does not possess absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office. The public interest in criminal accountability and the constitutional principle that no person is above the law outweigh any potential chilling effect on executive action.
Facts:
- After losing the 2020 presidential election, Donald J. Trump engaged in efforts to challenge the results and remain in power.
- The indictment alleges Trump and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to pressure state legislators and election officials to alter election outcomes.
- Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven states and caused them to transmit false certificates to government officials.
- Trump is alleged to have pressured the Department of Justice to conduct sham investigations and then-Vice President Mike Pence to fraudulently alter the election results during the January 6 certification proceeding.
- On January 6, 2021, Trump held a rally where he repeated false claims of election fraud and directed his supporters to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.
- Thousands of his supporters marched to the Capitol, resulting in a violent breach that delayed the congressional certification of the election for several hours.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a four-count indictment against former President Donald J. Trump.
- Trump filed motions to dismiss the indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the court of first instance.
- The motions argued for dismissal based on a claim of absolute presidential immunity and on double jeopardy principles stemming from his prior impeachment acquittal.
- The district court denied the motions to dismiss.
- Trump, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The United States, as appellee, filed a motion to expedite the appeal, which the appellate court granted.
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 of the United States possess absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office, and does an impeachment acquittal bar a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a former President does not possess absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts, and an impeachment acquittal does not bar subsequent prosecution. The court reasoned that the separation of powers doctrine does not immunize a President from the judicial process, especially when their actions allegedly violate federal criminal statutes enacted by Congress. Distinguishing from the absolute civil immunity established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court found the public interest in criminal accountability paramount, rejecting claims that the threat of prosecution would unduly chill presidential decision-making. The court also held that the Impeachment Judgment Clause does not create a prerequisite of impeachment and conviction before criminal prosecution; rather, it ensures that impeachment conviction does not preclude subsequent criminal liability. Finally, double jeopardy principles do not apply because an impeachment is a political, not criminal, proceeding, and the indicted offenses contain different legal elements than the charge of incitement in the impeachment trial.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes for the first time that former Presidents are not immune from federal criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. By rejecting the extension of absolute civil immunity from Fitzgerald to the criminal context, the court strongly affirmed the principle that no individual is above the law. This ruling sets a significant precedent that constrains executive power, clarifying that the presidency does not provide a permanent shield from accountability for criminal conduct. It will likely impact future considerations of executive authority and influence how the actions of sitting presidents are scrutinized by law enforcement and the public.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Trump (2024)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"