Trump v. United States, 603U.S.593 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts"with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch. Trump is a federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal district court judge Tanya Chutkan, following Trump's 2024 election. Trump's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing the Department of Justice's policy not to prosecute sitting presidents. This case would have determined whether then-president Donald Trump and others engaged in election interference during the 2020 election, including events during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It is the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for alleged official acts of a president was brought before the Supreme Court.
On July1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The court declined to rule on the scope of immunity for some acts alleged of Trump in his indictment, instead vacating the appellate decision and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.
The decision was widely criticized as anti-democratic by legal experts and historians, as well as Democratic politicians, some of whom introduced constitutional amendments to undo the ruling. In a scathing dissent calling the majority's reasoning "utterly indefensible", Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
Background
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the United States Supreme Court held that the president is immune from civil suit for money damages in regard to official acts. The Court clarified in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that the president is liable for civil damages for actions committed prior to assuming the presidency. The Supreme Court cases United States v. Nixon (1974) and Trump v. Vance (2020) limit the president's privilege within the judicial process.
Three separate civil lawsuits (later consolidated in Lee v. Trump) against Donald Trump filed by several members of Congress and Capitol police officers sought damages for Trump's actions from the U.S. Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity for that case. In February 2022, District Court for the District of Columbia judge Amit Mehta rejected former president Trump's claims of immunity in reference to the Capitol attack, allowing the civil trials to proceed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Mehta's opinion in a unanimous decision in December 2023, stating that because his January 6 speech was a campaign event, he had acted "as office-seeker, not office-holder", and his actions did not fall within the "outer perimeter" standard for presidential immunity established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). The ruling allowed Trump to argue the immunity question later in the civil trial. Trump opted not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
By March 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice began an investigation into Trump's actions from the general election in November 2020 and during the U.S. Capitol attack. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and the handling of classified documents after his presidency.
Lower court history
District court A grand jury indicted Trump on four charges released on August 1, 2023. On October 5, 2023, Trump's attorneys filed a motion in the federal prosecution case to dismiss the indictment, citing presidential immunity under Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Defense attorney John Lauro argued that Trump's claims of electoral irregularities and voter fraud were "efforts to ensure election integrity", a responsibility of the president. According to Lauro, Trump's attempts to validate his claims through the Department of Justice and the fake electors plot cannot be criminally prosecuted as "official duties" as president. Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump's claims of presidential immunity were not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent.
On December 1, judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the October 5 motion to dismiss under presidential immunity and the October 23 motion to dismiss under the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Due Process Clause.
Appeals court On December 7, Trump filed notice that he planned to appeal Chutkan's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and moved to pause the case pending the appeal.
An appeals court was due to hear the immunity dispute. On December 11, the special counsel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to skip the appeals court and resolve the immunity dispute on an expedited basis. The rare step was an effort to keep the trial on schedule. Within hours, the Supreme Court said it would consider whether to accept the case on an expedited timeline. On December 13, Chutkan paused all deadlines in the case, including the upcoming trial itself, so the immunity dispute could be resolved first. The gag order remained in effect. On December 20, Trump's deadline to file a response with the Supreme Court, his lawyers complained that the special counsel was asking to "bypass ... ordinary procedures ...and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon". Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to reject the expedited timeline and allow the appeals court to consider the case first. On December 22, the Supreme Court denied the special counsel's request, leaving the case to the appeals court.
On January 9, 2024, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard arguments in the immunity dispute. The three-judge panel included J. Michelle Childs, Florence Y. Pan, and Karen L. Henderson. Trump attended the hearing in person and was represented by lawyer John Sauer. In response to a hypothetical question posed by Judge Pan about whether a U.S. president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, Sauer argued that unless the president were subsequently impeached and convicted for said unlawful order, the president could not be criminally prosecuted. Judge Pan pointed out that if there is any circumstance in which a president can be criminally prosecuted (in this hypothetical, after being convicted by the Senate), then the president's immunity is not absolute. Judge Henderson added: "I think it's paradoxical to say that [Trump's] constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' allows him to violate criminal laws."
On February 6, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority ... and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump ... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution". The panel held further that former presidents have no immunity for "allegedly violat[ing] generally applicable criminal laws" while in office, and specifically "to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive powerthe recognition and implementation of election results". The panel noted that while "the separation of powers doctrine may immunize lawful discretionary acts… [it] does not bar the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for every official act", and that absolute presidential immunity "would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches". The panel concluded that "We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
United States Supreme Court On February 12, 2024, Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to request a stay of the 2020 election interference trial while he sought an en banc hearing from the D.C. Circuit Court. In response, Smith filed his own brief on February 14, 2024, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump's request and citing the urgency of the pending 2024 presidential election. Smith also requested that if the Supreme Court took the case, to treat Trump's request as a petition for writ of certiorari, and put the case on an expedited schedule.
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, later setting arguments for April 25. The court also maintained the stay of the trial until their decision was made.
On March 19, Trump's lawyers filed a 67-page brief arguing that a president would have to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate before they could be prosecuted for any crime. In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that concluded that it is constitutional to indict and try a former president for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.
On April 8, special counsel Jack Smith filed a 66-page brief urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump's legal team argued for protecting presidential actions from prosecution to maintain authority, while Smith emphasized accountability for alleged crimes.
Oral arguments Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2024.
Trump's attorney D. John Sauer argued that the President has absolute immunity from prosecution for all official acts unless successfully impeached and convicted by Congress before prosecution. Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, argued that there are appropriate safeguards to assure that a president could not be prosecuted for most acts done while in their official capacity. One notable controversy which occurred during oral arguments was a response Trump attorney John Sauer made to Sonia Sotomayor which argued Presidents can, among other things, kill political rivals with immunity.
Trump attorneys cited Nixon v. Fitzgerald to support Trump's argument, while Smith attorneys cited United States v. Nixon, the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court decision rejecting Nixon's claim of "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances". Smith attorneys argued the Fitzgerald precedent, which found presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil suits, does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions.