Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawPresidential immunitySeparation of powersArticle IIPresidentformer Presidentcriminal prosecutionofficial acts
Facts
A federal indictment charged former President Trump with conduct relating to the 2020 election and January 6. The majority opinion specifically addressed allegations involving Trump's discussions with Justice Department officials, his alleged efforts to influence the Vice President regarding the January 6 certification, his interactions with state officials and private parties concerning electors, and his public statements and tweets surrounding January 6. Trump argued that a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct undertaken while President. The Government argued that no such criminal immunity exists.
Issue
When may a former President be criminally prosecuted for conduct undertaken during his Presidency? More specifically, does the separation of powers require immunity for some or all presidential conduct, and how should courts distinguish core constitutional powers, other official acts, and unofficial acts?
Rule
A former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. He is entitled at least to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts, and there is no immunity for unofficial acts. In deciding whether conduct is official, courts may not inquire into the President's motives, and official conduct for which the President is immune may not be used as evidence to prove criminal liability.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
While in office, President Elena Ward met in Washington, D.C., with the Acting Attorney General and demanded that the Department open a federal corruption investigation into a contractor operating in Ohio. She also warned that she would remove the Acting Attorney General if he refused. After leaving office, she is indicted on a theory that she corruptly used threats and sham investigative demands to obstruct lawful government functions.
What is the strongest argument for dismissing the charge as to these acts?
Explanation. The majority held that a former President has absolute criminal immunity for conduct within the President's exclusive constitutional authority. Discussions with Justice Department officials about investigations and threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General implicate supervision of prosecutions and removal of principal executive officers, both treated by the Court as conclusive and preclusive presidential powers. Allegations of improper purpose do not strip that conduct of immunity, and courts may not inquire into motive when classifying conduct.