The Making of the President 2024: Trump v. The United States
On July 1, 2024, the US Supreme Court released its ruling in the landmark decision of Trump v. United States, in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" and 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.
The case arose out of an ongoing federal trial in which Donald Trump, while President, engaged with others in election interference during the 2020 presidential election, including events during the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. This is the first time a case concerning criminal prosecution for alleged official acts of a president was brought before the Supreme Court.
The court issued its decision on July 1, 2024. The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision, that President Trump had absolute immunity for acts he committed as president within his core constitutional purview, and presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, but no immunity for unofficial acts. The decision also provides the same immunity to all presidents. The court declined to rule on the scope of immunity for some of Trump's acts alleged in his indictment. Instead they overturned the appellate decision and remanded the case to the US District Court for further proceedings.
The court had considered this issued over forty years ago in its decision of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). There the Supreme Court held that the president is immune from civil suit for monetary damages in regard to official acts. Fifteen years later, the Court ruled, in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that the president is liable for civil damages for actions committed prior to assuming the presidency.
Three separate civil lawsuits were later consolidated into the case of Thompson v. Trump in which several Congresspersons and Capitol police officers sought damages for Trump's actions during the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump asserted presidential immunity for that case. In February 2022, a District Court Judge rejected former president Donald Trump's claims of immunity and allowed the civil trials to proceed.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld this ruling in a unanimous
decision in December 2023, holding 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 imminity established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Trump opted not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
By March 2022, the Department of Justice began an investigation into President Trump's actions from the general election in November 2020 and during the Capitol attacks. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and his handling of classified documents after the end of his presidency.
A grand jury indicted Trump on four charges on August 1, 2023. On October 5, 2023, Trump's attorneys filed a motion in the federal prosecution case to dismiss the indictment, on the grounds of presidential immunity. On December 1, Judge Tanya Chutkin 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.
On December 7, Trump filed notice that he planned to appeal Chutkan's ruling to the DC Court of Appeals 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 US 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, 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 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."
On February 12, 2024, Trump appealed to the United States Supreme Court to request a stay of the 2020 election interference trial. 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 presidential election. 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. Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2024.
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision vacating the decision from the Court of Appeals and holding that presidents had immunity from criminal prosecution for acts conducted under their core constitutional authority as president and presumptive immunity for all official acts, but did not have immunity for any private acts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that presidents "may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]" granted under the Article II of the Constitution, such as commanding the military, issuing pardons, vetoing legislation, overseeing foreign relations, managing immigration, and appointing judges. Roberts explained that neither Congress nor the courts have authority to limit powers exclusively granted to the President under the Constitution and delineated the scope of absolute immunity when the president's acts fell outside of his core constitutional powers, writing that absolute immunity did not extend to "conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress". Roberts wrote that other official acts, described as conduct taken in accordance with the president's "constitutional and statutory authority", are granted presumptive immunity but may be prosecuted, provided that prosecutors demonstrate that such charges would not threaten the power and function of the executive branch. The court found that official acts included conduct within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities that is "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority." Courts determining whether acts are official are precluded from examining the motives behind the act or designating an act as unofficial simply due to its alleged violation of the law. Unofficial acts would not enjoy any immunity from criminal prosecution.
The court rejected Trump's argument that impeachment and removal from office is a necessary prerequisite to criminally charge a president. In crafting the ruling, the majority stated that while the framers of the Constitution supported a powerful presidency, there was fragmentary evidence about presidential immunity in particular. The court declined to dismiss the indictment against Trump. The court found that some specific alleged acts were clearly immune from prosecution and others required an analysis of the facts. The majority ruled that Trump's alleged efforts to leverage the Department of Justice in producing alternate slates of electors could not be prosecuted, while remanding decisions on immunity related to Trump's alleged pressuring of the Vice-President, state officials, and private individuals to the district court. The court also directed the district court to examine the scope of evidence that could be utilized in the charges against Trump, such as his public comments.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that granting immunity from prosecution would reshape the institution of the Presidency and risk permitting criminal conduct by presidents. Sotomayor said that the majority opinion would effectively expand what may be considered official acts beyond their core duties, depriving prosecutors of an effective means of bringing charges. Sotomayor expressed concerns that a president would be immune from prosecution in a number of hypothetical situations, such as in ordering assassinations of political rivals and taking bribes for pardons. She wrote that the ruling on presidential immunity was more expansive than the founders would have recognized.
Trump, posting on his social media platform Truth Social, remarked of the decision "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
President Biden described the Supreme Court's ruling as setting a "dangerous precedent", which "almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do" since "limits will be self-imposed by the president alone." Biden warned that Trump returning as president would be particularly dangerous under the court's ruling. He said, "No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. [With] today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes.”