Supreme Court Ruling on Trump v. United States: Presidential Immunity
- Sarvesh Saxena, Attorney
- Jul 6, 2024
- 4 min read
Case Number: 23-939, Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States addresses critical questions about the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. This article summarises the prosecution and defence arguments, the court's reasoning, and the implications for former President Trump and presidential immunity.
Background
Former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on four counts related to actions following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the election results by spreading false claims of election fraud to obstruct the electoral process. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.
A.Prosecution's Argument
The prosecution claimed that Trump and his co-conspirators:
(i) Pressured state officials to alter electoral votes.
(ii) Organised fraudulent slates of electors.
(iii) Tried to use the Justice Department to legitimise false claims.
(iv) Pressured the Vice President to reject or alter the certification of electoral votes.
(v) Exploited the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to further delay certification.
B. Defence's Argument
Trump's defence argued that his actions were within the scope of his official duties, including:
(i) Making public statements about the election.
(ii) Communicating with officials to ensure election integrity.
(iii) Discussing election certification with the Vice President and other officials.
Trump argued that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.
C. Court's Decision
Majority Opinion (Chief Justice Roberts)
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, ruled that a former President is entitled to some level of immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office:
1. Absolute Immunity for Core Constitutional Powers:
The President has absolute immunity for actions within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority, such as issuing pardons or commanding the military.
2. Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts:
For broader official duties not exclusively within constitutional authority, the President is entitled to presumptive immunity unless it can be shown that prosecution poses no danger to executive functions.
3. No Immunity for Unofficial Acts:
Actions outside the scope of official duties, undertaken in a personal or unofficial capacity, do not receive any immunity.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority on absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, emphasising the importance of protecting executive independence.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred with the majority opinion except for Part III-C. She agreed that the Constitution prohibits criminalising a President's exercise of core Article II powers, but would have framed the legal issues differently and answered some questions the majority left open.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the decision grants excessive protection to former Presidents, potentially placing them above the law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate dissent, warning that broad immunity could undermine the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent.
Reasoning Behind Granting Immunity to Trump
1. Separation of Powers: Presidential immunity is essential to maintain the separation of powers, preventing undue interference from the legislative and judicial branches.
2. Core Constitutional Powers: Absolute immunity for actions within the President's exclusive constitutional authority ensures essential duties can be performed without fear of prosecution.
3. Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts: For broader official duties, presumptive immunity protects the President from constant litigation threats, ensuring effective decision-making.
4. Historical Precedents: Citing cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court extended the logic of civil immunity to criminal prosecution to avoid chilling presidential decision-making.
5. Effective Governance: Immunity prevents undermining the executive branch's independence, allowing the President to act decisively without fear of future prosecution.
In summary, the court's decision was based on upholding the separation of powers, protecting core constitutional duties, and ensuring effective governance free from undue legal threats.
What this means For Trump:
Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions within his exclusive constitutional authority.The case is remanded to the District Court to determine if other actions fall within the scope of presumptive immunity.
Unofficial acts, like personal involvement in the 6 January events, are not protected by immunity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States establishes a nuanced framework for presidential immunity, affirming that while Presidents need protection to perform their duties effectively, this protection is not absolute and does not extend to unofficial actions. This ruling impacts former President Trump and shapes the legal landscape for future Presidents, ensuring accountability while maintaining executive independence.
Source Credit: Trump v United States Case.
LEGAL ANALYSIS BY: Sarvesh Saxena, Barrister, Bar of England & Wales. Authorised to conduct unreserved legal services. No Rights of Audience.
Legal Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may not reflect the latest legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate or complete. No attorney-client relationship is created by this article. Readers should seek professional legal advice from a qualified attorney in their jurisdiction before making any legal decisions. The author disclaims all liability for actions taken based on this article's content.
Brilliant insights and perspectives!