Trump v. United States

Trump v. United States, Sup. Ct. No. 23-939 (July 1, 2024), is the landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court against prosecuting any ex-president, namely Donald Trump, for any official acts. The decision leaves open the possibility of prosecuting ex-presidents for conduct that is not part of their official duties as president.

The majority decision was 6-3, as written by Chief Justice John Roberts who held:

“

Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President's actions on subjects within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one may not criminalize the President's actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

”

Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2886, at *28 (July 1, 2024).

The Court then defined the scope of application of this absolute immunity very broadly:

“

And some Presidential conduct for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority. Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 755-756 (noting that we have refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support). In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, [i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government if [i]n exercising the functions of his office, the President was under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)). We thus rejected such inquiries in Fitzgerald. The plaintiff there contended that he was dismissed from the Air Force for retaliatory reasons. See 457 U. S., at 733-741, 756. The Air Force responded that the reorganization that led to Fitzgerald's dismissal was undertaken to promote efficiency. Ibid. Because under Fitzgerald's theory an inquiry into the President's motives could not be avoided, we rejected the theory, observing that [i]nquiries of this kind could be highly intrusive. Id., at 756. [B]are allegations of malice should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 817-818 (1982). Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

”

Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2886, at *40-42 (July 1, 2024) (emphasis added).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with one aspect of Roberts' opinion, and she concurred separately on that point which no other justice joined. Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred separately to question the legitimacy of the office of the special counsel, headed by Jack Smith, that perpetrates with unlimited funding the politically motivated prosecutions of Trump.

Strident dissents by the three liberal Justices falsely assert that this Court decision renders Trump "above the law."

Reaction

Trump responded with:

“

"BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

”

Professor Jonathan Turley posted on X:

“

Note this language: Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U.S.C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

”