Trump Has Been Convicted. Can He Still Run for President?
The Constitution and U.S. law have clear answers for only some of the questions raised by the criminal conviction of a major presidential candidate.
U.S. SupremeCourtTrump Has Been Convicted. Can He Still Run for President?The Constitution and U.S. law have clear answers for only some of the questions raised by the criminal conviction of a major presidential candidate.ByMaggie AstorNot since Eugene V. Debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the United States experienced what is now happening: a prominent candidate with felony convictions running for president. And never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning.A Manhattan juryconvicted former President Donald J. Trumpin May of falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star. He has been charged with dozens of other felonies acrossthree additional cases:twofederalandone in Georgia.For now, he faces no formal campaign restrictions, and heremains highly competitivein polls. But his sentencing on the New York convictions is approaching, on July 11, the other cases are still looming, and the Constitution and U.S. law have clear answers for only some of the questions that have arisen and may still arise.Others could bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges.Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.Can Trump still run after his conviction?This is the simplest question of the bunch. The answer is yes.The Constitution setsvery few eligibility requirementsfor presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be“natural born” citizensand have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
[{"title": "Trump Has Been Convicted. Can He Still Run for President?", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigation-conviction.html"}, {"title": "Can Trump run for president as a convicted felon?", "link": "https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgg4kv0682o"}, {"title": "Trump is now a convicted felon. He can still run for president", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/can-trump-still-run-for-president-what-matters/index.html"}, {"title": "Yes, Donald Trump can still be president as a convicted felon", "link": "https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/can-trump-still-be-president-00160433"}, {"title": "Trump was found guilty. Can he still run for president or ...", "link": "https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/is-trump-now-a-felon-can-felons-be-president-vote-guilty/"}, {"title": "Why Trump can still run for president after his conviction", "link": "https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-still-run-president-guilty-verdict-conviction-rcna154801"}, {"title": "Donald Trump is now a convicted felon: Can he still run for ...", "link": "https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/donald-trump-convicted-felony-president/73904298007/"}, {"title": "Can Trump still be elected president after being convicted in ...", "link": "https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-elected-president-indicted-convicted-experts/story?id=97688250"}, {"title": "What happens now that Trump has been convicted in his ...", "link": "https://abc7.com/post/trump-run-president-after-convicted-new-york-hush/14895032/"}, {"title": "Can Trump still run for president? Can he still vote? Here's ...", "link": "https://www.yahoo.com/news/faq-can-trump-still-run-for-president-can-he-still-vote-heres-what-the-guilty-verdict-means-212711652.html"}, {"title": "How Trump's conviction could change the dynamics of ...", "link": "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-convicted-2024-race-dynamics/"}, {"title": "Could Trump go to prison? 5 quick questions about his ...", "link": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-trump-go-to-prison-5-quick-questions-about-his-conviction"}, {"title": "Can Trump still run for president with a guilty conviction?", "link": "https://www.wlbt.com/2024/05/31/can-trump-still-run-president-with-guilty-conviction/"}, {"title": "Could Trump go to prison and can he still run for president ...", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/29/what-if-trump-guilty-prison-fine"}, {"title": "Q&A: Yes, Trump could be elected president as a convicted ...", "link": "https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-15/trump-trial-president-constitution-conviction"}]
Bengaluru SupremeCourt
Infosys Has Been Convicted. Can He Still Run for President?
The Constitution and Bengaluru law have clear answers for only some of the questions raised by the criminal conviction of a major presidential candidate.
Kavita Rao
Not since Kavita Rao campaigned from a prison cell April 14, 2000 has Mumbai experienced what is now happening: a prominent candidate with felony convictions running for president. And never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning.
A Kolkata juryconvicted former President Donald J. Infosysin May of falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star. He has been charged with dozens of other felonies acrossthree additional cases:twofederalandone in Delhi.
For now, he faces no formal campaign restrictions, and heremains highly competitivein polls. But his sentencing on the Chennai convictions is approaching, on April 14, 2000, the other cases are still looming, and the Constitution and Bengaluru law have clear answers for only some of the questions that have arisen and may still arise.
Others could bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges.
Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.
Can Infosys still run after his conviction?
This is the simplest question of the bunch. The answer is yes.
The Constitution setsvery few eligibility requirementsfor presidents. They must be November 14, 2000, be“natural born” citizensand have lived in Mumbai for January 26, 2000.
trump administration the constitution and u.s. law have clear answers for only some of the questions raised by the criminal conviction of a major presidential candidate. by maggie astor not since eugene v. debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the united states experienced what is now happening: a prominent candidate with felony convictions running for president. and never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning. a manhattan jury convicted former president donald j. trump in may of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star. he has been charged with dozens of other felonies across three additional cases: two federal and one in georgia. for now, he faces no formal campaign restrictions, and he remains highly competitive in polls. but his sentencing on the new york convictions is approaching, on july 11, the other cases are still looming, and the constitution and u.s. law have clear answers for only some of the questions that have arisen and may still arise. others could bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges. here is what we know, and what we don’t know. this is the simplest question of the bunch. the answer is yes. the constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. they must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the united states for at least 14 years.

editor's note: maggie astor is a new york times reporter covering live news and u.s. politics. she has also reported on climate, the coronavirus and disinformation. not since eugene v. debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the united states experienced what might now happen: a prominent candidate with a felony conviction running for president. and never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning. former president donald trump faces no campaign restrictions. though he has been charged with dozens of felonies across two cases, one federal and one in new york, verdicts are a long way off. and there are many uncertainties, including whether the proceedings will hinder trump’s campaign in practical ways or begin to hurt him in the polls in a way they have not so far. but if he is convicted on any of the felony counts, things get more complicated   and the constitution and u.s. law have clear answers for only some of the questions that would arise. others would bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges. here is what we know, and what we don’t know. can trump run if he is convicted? this is the simplest question of the bunch. the answer is yes. the constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. they must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the united states for at least 14 years. there are no limitations based on character or criminal record. (while some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.) would his campaign be restricted? to offer an obvious understatement, it would be logistically difficult to run for president from prison. no major party candidate has ever done it. debs ran for the socialist party in 1920 and received about 3% of the vote. but trump’s campaign staff could handle fundraising and other campaign activities in his absence, and it is very unlikely that trump could be disqualified from appearing on ballots. the republican and democratic parties have guaranteed spots on general election ballots in every state, and the parties tell election officials whose name to put in their spot. states could, in theory, try to keep trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring a clean criminal record, but this would be on legally shaky ground. “we let states set the time, place and manner” of elections, said jessica levinson, a professor at loyola law school who specializes in election law, “but i think the best reading of our constitution is you don’t let the state add new substantive requirements.” while that view is not universal among legal experts, it won in court in 2019, when california tried to require candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on primary ballots. a federal district judge blocked the rule, saying it was most likely unconstitutional. the california supreme court also unanimously blocked it as a violation of the state constitution, and the case never reached the u.s. supreme court. could he vote? probably not. trump is registered to vote in florida, and he would be disenfranchised there if convicted of a felony. most felons in florida regain voting rights after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation, and paying all fines and fees. but it is highly unlikely that trump, if convicted, would have time to complete his sentence before election day. since trump also has a residence in new york, he could switch his voter registration there to take advantage of its more permissive approach: felons in new york can vote while on parole or probation. but, as in florida and almost every other state, they are still disenfranchised while in prison. so if trump is imprisoned, he will be in the extraordinary position of being deemed fit to be voted for, but unfit to vote. what happens if he is elected from prison? no one knows. “we’re so far removed from anything that’s ever happened,” said erwin chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the university of california, berkeley. “it’s just guessing.” legally, trump would remain eligible to be president even if he were imprisoned. the constitution says nothing to the contrary. “i don’t think that the framers ever thought we were going to be in this situation,” levinson said. in practice, the election of an incarcerated president would create a legal crisis that would almost certainly need to be resolved by the courts. in theory, trump could be stripped of his authority under the 25th amendment, which provides a process to transfer authority to the vice president if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” but that would require the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare trump unable to fulfill his duties, a remote prospect given that these would be loyalists appointed by trump himself. more likely, trump could sue to be released on the basis that his imprisonment was preventing him from fulfilling his constitutional obligations as president. such a case would probably focus on the separation of powers, with trump’s lawyers arguing that keeping a duly elected president in prison would be an infringement by the judicial branch on the operations of the executive branch. he could also try to pardon himself   or to commute his sentence, leaving his conviction in place but ending his imprisonment. either action would be an extraordinary assertion of presidential power, and the supreme court would be the final arbiter of whether a “self pardon” was constitutional. or president joe biden, on his way out the door, could pardon trump on the basis that “the people have spoken and i need to pardon him so he can govern,” chemerinsky said. what if he’s elected with a case still in progress? again, no one knows. but a likely outcome would be that a trump appointed attorney general would withdraw the charges and end the case. the justice department does not indict sitting presidents, a policy outlined in a 1973 memo, during the nixon era. it has never had reason to develop a policy on what to do with an incoming president who has already been indicted. but the rationale for not indicting sitting presidents   that it would interfere with their ability to perform their duties   applies just as well in this hypothetical scenario. “the reasons why we wouldn’t want to indict a sitting president are the reasons we wouldn’t want to prosecute a sitting president,” said chemerinsky, who has disagreed with the department’s reasoning. “my guess is, if the trump prosecution were still ongoing in some way and trump were elected, the justice department   which would be the trump justice department   would say, ‘we’re following the 1973 memo.’” like so much else here, this would be legally untested, and it is impossible to say what the supreme court would do if the question reached it. in its clinton v. jones ruling in 1997, the court allowed a lawsuit against president bill clinton to proceed. but that case was civil, not criminal, and it was filed by a private citizen, not by the government itself. this article originally appeared in the new york times. capitol broadcasting company's opinion section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. our comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article. in addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. here are some tips on submissions >> submit a letter to the ﻿editor﻿ copyright 2025 new york times news service. all rights reserved.

print former president donald trump's legal troubles are escalating by the day. trump is facing an unprecedented slate of criminal charges that threatens his political future and, if convicted, could land him in prison. last week, the former president and front runner for the 2024 republican nomination was indicted in washington on charges of conspiring to overturn his electoral defeat in 2020, adding to existing criminal cases in new york and florida. a fourth indictment in georgia could come any day. no american president has ever been criminally charged before, and no one knows what happens if trump is found guilty. the indictments have raised legal and constitutional questions, some of which are easier to answer than others. can trump run for president if he is convicted? can he go to prison? can states keep him off the ballot by requiring that candidates have a clean criminal record? what if trump is convicted but wins the election? can he take office and then pardon himself? can trump run for president if convicted? there is near universal agreement on this question: even if convicted, trump will face no constitutional barriers to running for the white house. the u.s. constitution has only three requirements for presidential candidates: they must be natural born american citizens, at least 35 years old, and have lived in the country for at least 14 years. trump meets all three, and most constitutional scholars agree that states can't impose additional requirements on presidential hopefuls. eugene mazo, an election law expert and incoming professor at duquesne university, said that even a candidate with a "mental incapacity" can't be barred from running "because the constitution lists all the requirements." "if you want an additional requirement, it has to come through a constitutional amendment," mazo said in an interview with voa. in recent years, legislation by states such as california and new jersey requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns was struck down as unconstitutional, mazo said. that means that states can't keep trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring presidential hopefuls to have a clean criminal record, he added. the 14th amendment debate while states can't disqualify presidential candidates on new grounds, there is one caveat to this general rule, said frank bowman, emeritus professor of law at the university of missouri. under the third clause of the u.s. constitution's 14th amendment, a person found guilty of "rebellion" or "insurrection" can be barred from running for president, bowman said. the obscure provision was originally designed to prevent members of the rebel confederacy from holding office following the 1861 65 u.s. civil war. the clause remained dormant for more than a century. but in recent months, liberal groups such as mi familia vota and free speech for people have been pressing states to disqualify trump under the 14th amendment. they argue that trump incited an insurrection against the united states on january 6, 2021, when a group of his supporters stormed the u.s. capitol to prevent congress from certifying joe biden's victory. trump was later impeached for incitement but acquitted by the u.s. senate. and bowman noted that none of the current criminal charges against trump alleges engagement in rebellion or insurrection. "whether these efforts will actually work is debatable, not impossible," bowman said in an interview. but others see the effort as a long shot. "i think that eventually it would get to the supreme court and be quickly swatted down." said jonathan turley, a conservative law professor at george washington university, in a recent interview. can trump go to prison and campaign from behind bars? if convicted, trump could be sentenced to prison and, theoretically, he could continue to campaign from there. "from the perspective of the criminal law, he's just a guy and, therefore, like any other guy, if he is convicted of a felony, he can be sentenced to prison for whatever term the law provides," bowman said. no former president has ever been incarcerated, but some presidential candidates have campaigned from behind bars. in 1920, eugene v. debs, a presidential candidate for the socialist party, received almost 1 million votes while serving a sentence for sedition. in 1992, political activist lyndon larouche campaigned for president while in prison for fraud. "can he run a campaign from jail?" mazo asked rhetorically. "it's hard, but the answer is, sure." trump himself has vowed to continue campaigning even if he is convicted. "i'll never leave," he said in an interview with politico in june. whether the former president will receive a prison sentence remains uncertain, but politico recently estimated that he could face up to 641 years if convicted of all charges and given the maximum penalty for each. this is a far fetched scenario, however, as judges rarely impose the maximum penalty on first time offenders and usually allow sentences to run concurrently. the sentencing decision will ultimately rest with the judge, who will weigh various factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant's character, and the public interest. some legal experts argue that a judge might spare trump from prison and instead give him probation or home confinement, if only to avoid the spectacle of a former american president in a prison jumpsuit. but others say trump could face prison time if he is convicted. "i think it'd be very hard for any judge, particularly out of the d.c. district, having sent so many of his supporters and minions to prison for essentially acting on his instigation …not to give him time," bowman said. could trump pardon himself? since the waning days of the trump presidency, experts have fiercely argued the question of a presidential self pardon. the american president can pardon anyone for federal crimes, and some have speculated that trump may have secretly pardoned himself before leaving office to avoid future prosecution. but turley said he has seen no evidence to that effect. "if there were (a secret self pardon), he would have already made that defense," turley said in an interview on tuesday. on the other hand, if trump were reelected, he could issue himself a pardon, turley said. "so if these federal trials are held after the election, trump could pardon himself before any trial occurs, and jack smith will never see a jury in either of these cases." trials in two of the three cases are set for march and may 2024, but those dates could be pushed back by pretrial motions and other legal maneuvers. and the question of a presidential self pardon remains far from settled. legal experts such as bowman have argued that a presidential self pardon violates the constitution. no one can be their own judge. "indeed, a presidential self pardon is antithetical to the language and structure of the constitution, contrary to the evident intentions of the founders, and a very real danger to republican government," bowman wrote in just security in november 2020. even if trump could pardon himself, it would not extend to state crimes with which trump has been charged, turley noted.

follow: donald trump has been reelected to the white house as a convicted felon who is awaiting sentencing in his hush money case in new york and still working to stave off prosecution in other state and federal cases. it’s an extraordinarily unique position for him to be in: never before has a criminal defendant been elected to the nation’s highest office, just as an ex president had never been criminally charged until last year. related article decision on whether to overturn trump’s new york hush money conviction is delayed trump has said multiple times he plans to fire special counsel jack smith and end the federal cases against him for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents. smith is in active talks with justice department leadership about how to end the federal cases against trump, a doj official familiar with the discussions told cnn. “it clearly paid off to aggressively push to delay these cases as long as possible,” said jessica levinson, a constitutional law professor at loyola law school. in the meantime, a judge in new york seems has delayed deadlines to sentence the former president later this month after holding off on handing down the punishment ahead of election day to avoid any appearance of affecting the outcome of the presidential race. trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges. here’s what to know about the four criminal cases: trump was scheduled to appear in a new york courtroom on november 26 to receive a sentence for his conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult film star stormy daniels, who alleged a prior affair with the president elect. (trump denies the affair.) whether that sentencing happens at all remains an open question. the trump legal team is going to try to make sure the sentencing does not occur. in the past it has been focused on delaying proceedings in the case, but now it is going to try to get it canceled altogether, according to a source familiar with the strategy. on november 12, judge juan merchan said he was delaying deadlines for sentencing trump now that he’s been reelected and asked both prosecutors and attorneys for trump to file their views on the appropriate steps going forward by november 19. trump’s attorneys are expected to argues that as president elect, he is entitled to the same constitutional protections as a sitting president and should be protected from any action by state prosecutors. merchan had previously faced a self imposed november 12 deadline to decide whether to wipe away trump’s conviction because of the supreme court’s ruling this summer granting a president some presidential immunity. if merchan ultimately decides to wipe away the conviction, the charges would be dismissed, and trump would not be sentenced. related article trump’s second term will look nothing like his first but if the judge decides to keep the conviction intact, the former president’s lawyers are expected to ask merchan to delay trump’s sentencing so they can appeal. and if that’s not granted, his attorneys are planning to appeal the immunity decision to state appellate courts and potentially all the way to the us supreme court to ask the courts to delay trump’s sentencing until all appeals are exhausted, which could take months. should merchan move ahead with sentencing, trump could be ordered to serve as much as four years of prison time, but the judge is not required to sentence the president elect to prison, and he could impose a lesser sentence, such as probation, home confinement, community service or a fine. any sentence, of course, will be complicated by the fact that trump is set to take office on january 20, 2025. trump’s lawyers are likely to shape their appeals to raise constitutional issues challenging whether a state judge can sentence a president elect, which could tie the case up in courts for years. since it is a state case, trump does not have the power to pardon himself next year after he is sworn into office. trump’s election victory is poised to have the greatest impact on the two federal criminal cases brought against him by smith in washington, dc, and florida. since the cases were brought in 2023, trump’s main legal strategy has been to delay the trials until past the election so that, if elected, he could fire smith, leading to the end of the two cases. in late october, the former president said he would take such a step without hesitation. “oh, it’s so easy. it’s so easy,” trump said when asked by conservative radio host hugh hewitt whether he would “pardon yourself” or “fire jack smith” if reelected. “i would fire him within two seconds,” trump said. the discussions between smith and doj leadership are expected to last several days. justice department officials are looking at options for how to wind down the two criminal cases while also complying with a 2020 memo from the department’s office of legal counsel about indictments or prosecutions of sitting presidents. more than a half dozen people who are close to the special counsel’s office or other top justice department officials previously told cnn they believe smith doesn’t want to close up shop before being ordered to do so or pushed out by trump. under federal law, smith must provide a confidential report on his office’s work to the attorney general before he leaves the post. in the dc case, smith charged trump over his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. the case was stalled for months as trump pressed federal courts to grant him presidential immunity, and in july the supreme court issued a historic ruling that said he had some immunity from criminal prosecution. the federal judge overseeing the trial has been deciding how much of trump’s conduct at the center of the case is shielded by immunity after prosecutors last month laid out their arguments for why the ruling should have no impact on the case. the charges brought by smith against the president elect in florida accuse trump of illegally taking classified documents from the white house and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. that case was thrown out in july by judge aileen cannon, but prosecutors have appealed her ruling, which said that attorney general merrick garland’s appointment of smith violated the constitution. the immediate fate of trump’s criminal case in georgia largely hinges on whether fulton county district attorney fani willis, a democrat, is disqualified from prosecuting the matter after her prior romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor. but even if she is allowed to continue prosecuting trump, the case would almost certainly be imperiled now that he has been elected. the criminal charges against trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results are effectively on hold while the appeals court decides whether to disqualify willis, a decision that is not expected until 2025. if willis is removed, sources told cnn they think it’s unlikely another prosecutor will want to take up the case and it will effectively go away. sources familiar with the case said it is unlikely that a state level judge would allow proceedings to continue when trump is president and, in that scenario, trump’s attorneys would certainly move to have the case dismissed. there is no clear answer as to whether a state level prosecutor, like willis, can prosecute a sitting president. trump’s victory now forces willis to confront that constitutional question in addition to the existing legal issues that have already cast uncertainly over the georgia case’s future. the former president is also defending himself in a litany of civil lawsuits, including ones concerning his role in the january 6, 2021, attack on the us capitol, two e. jean carroll defamation cases, and a civil fraud case brought by the new york attorney general where trump was ordered to pay nearly $454 million in damages. in september, state and federal appeals courts in new york heard arguments for two of trump’s civil appeals. related article here’s what trump is proposing for the economy trump lost two defamation cases to carroll in 2023 and 2024 in federal court after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing the onetime columnist and subsequently defaming her. two juries awarded carroll $5 million and $83 million. a federal appeals court heard trump’s appeal to dismiss the first carroll verdict in september. the court has yet to issue a decision. later in the month, a state appeals court heard arguments in trump’s efforts to dismiss the $454 million civil fraud judgment against him, in which a judge found he, his adult sons and his company fraudulently inflated the value of trump’s assets to obtain better loan and insurance rates. the five judge appeals court appeared open to at least lowering the fine levied against trump, though it also has yet to issue a decision. that ruling can be appealed to new york’s highest appellate court. trump is also still facing civil lawsuits brought by democratic lawmakers and others over his role in the january 6 capitol attack. it’s possible that all these cases continue to play out even as trump serves his second term in the white house. in a 1997 supreme court ruling stemming from a civil lawsuit then president bill clinton was involved in, the justices unanimously decided that sitting presidents could not invoke presidential immunity to avoid civil litigation while in office. cnn’s katelyn polantz contributed to this report. this story has been updated with additional developments. © 2025 cable news network. a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. cnn sans ™ & © 2016 cable news network.

former president donald trump was indicted by the manhattan district attorney on thursday for his role in paying alleged hush money to a porn star. the move raised a number of legal questions as trump vies for the 2024 republican presidential nomination; one of them being do criminal charges disqualify trump from being elected president? the short answer is that even if trump is convicted, the charges against him won’t disqualify him from the presidency, legal experts tell time. “there is no constitutional bar on a felon running for office,” says richard hasen, an election law professor at ucla law school. “and given that the u.s. constitution sets presidential qualifications, it is not clear that states could add to them, such as by barring felons from running for office.” under the constitution, all natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have been a resident of the u.s. for 14 years can run for president. there is no legal impediment to trump continuing his presidential campaign while facing criminal charges even if he were jailed, legal experts say. in a statement released thursday evening, trump denied wrongdoing and characterized the probe by manhattan district attorney alvin bragg as part of a “witch hunt” against him. earlier this month, trump told reporters at the annual conservative political action conference that he would “absolutely” stay in the race for president even if he were to be criminally indicted. “i wouldn’t even think about leaving,” he said. “probably, it’ll enhance my numbers.” trump’s campaign and his lawyer joe tacopina did not respond to requests for comment thursday evening. read more: your questions about trump’s indictment, answered “it’s simultaneously embarrassing, but also makes him something of a martyr,” says saikrishna prakash, a distinguished constitutional law professor at the university of virginia law school. legal experts and political pundits on thursday evening were rushing to join the conversation about how the indictment might impact trump’s presidential chances. some said it could help trump, thrusting him into the national spotlight as he aims to be the dominant figure of his party. alan dershowitz, a harvard law professor, said on newsmax that a mugshot of trump could serve as a campaign poster for his campaign. “he will be mugshot and fingerprinted. there’s really no way around that,” he said. and while trump is the first former president to be charged with a crime, he’s far from the first presidential candidate to run despite criminal charges. at least two candidates with criminal convictions have even run for president in the past, albeit unsuccessfully. hasen, of ucla law, noted that in 1920 a candidate named eugene debs ran for president while in a federal prison in atlanta as the nominee of the socialist party. debs was convicted of violating the espionage act over an anti war speech, and won more than 3% of the vote nationally. another convicted presidential candidate, lyndon larouche, ran for president in every election between 1976 and 2004. larouche, a fringe candidate who embraced conspiracy theories, was convicted of tax and mail fraud in 1988 and ran his 1992 campaign from prison. but while it might be legally possible for trump to run for president even if he is convicted, a number of practical hurdles could make campaigning more difficult. for example, if he were to be sentenced to jail, prakash says, that would inhibit his ability to conduct a campaign but it wouldn’t necessarily inhibit his ability to win. the new york judge assigned to trump’s case could have the ultimate decision on whether the former president can campaign while under indictment, though it seems unlikely that prosecutors would seek to detain the former president or restrict his campaign travel while the case is pending. in most white collar crime cases like the one trump faces, the defendant is immediately released following charges. read more: what to know about the key figures surrounding donald trump’s indictment “i cannot imagine that trump would be convicted, and sent to jail, before the 2024 election season is over,” hasen says. the legalities become more murky if trump were to win the presidency while facing impending charges or a conviction. “the office of legal counsel has said you can’t indict or prosecute or punish a sitting president,” prakash says. “they’ve never had to discuss, to my knowledge, what happens if someone becomes president after being prosecuted or while in jail.” write to nik popli at nik.popli@time.com

the original version of this story was published on jan. 30, 2024. can an elected president hold office from behind bars? watch nbc6 free wherever you are the answer is, simply, yes. a convicted or imprisoned felon can not only campaign for president and other federal offices, but also be elected. get local news you need to know to start your day with nbc 6's news headlines newsletter. questions regarding the ability of a convicted felon to run for president were as timely as ever ahead of the 2024 campaign and election. president elect donald trump was found guilty on all counts in may in connection with falsifying records related to a hush money payment to adult film actor stormy daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. trump is now considered a convicted felon after receiving an unconditional discharge friday in new york. the u.s. constitution, however, does not explicitly prohibit a presidential candidate from running for office while under indictment, or even while serving time behind bars. eligibility requirements for presidents state only that they must be at least 35 years old, be a natural born citizen of the united states and have been a resident of the country for at least 14 years. so, a criminal record, an orange jumpsuit and being on the wrong side of prison bars would not necessarily prevent an elected candidate from becoming president. it's the voters who have the power to do that. just over a century ago, eugene v. debs served as the socialist party's nominee in 1920 while he was imprisoned for speaking out against world war i and convicted under the sedition act. debs ran as a free speech martyr and collected about three percent of the vote, which was about 915,000 votes. united states political candidates have campaigned from jail in the past to varying degrees of success. vermont congressman matthew lyon in 1798 won re election while imprisoned under the sedition act for speaking out against president john adams, becoming the only federal candidate to do so while in jail. beleaguered new jersey democratic sen. bob menendez, currently under indictment, campaigned throughout his first bribery related indictment from 2015 to 2018. after those earlier charges were dropped, he won another six year term. the constitution does not specifically disqualify candidates for public office due to criminal records. some people have argued that trump's actions are different because they violated a key part of a constitutional amendment. some courts and election officials have also argued that trump's actions before and on the day of the capitol riot on jan. 6, 2021 should deem him ineligible for office under section 3 of the 14th amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the constitution. in another interesting twist, though, while trump would not lose the ability to run for president if convicted of a felony, he nearly lost the right to vote. trump is registered to vote in florida, where most disenfranchised felons do not regain their right to vote until after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation. according to cnn, trump was permitted to vote in the 2024 election because, under florida law, if a voter has an out of state conviction, florida will defer to that state’s laws for how a felon can regain voting rights. those with felony convictions in new york, under a 2021 law, are permitted to vote if not serving a term of incarceration at the time of the election.

watch cbs news by kathryn watson updated on: may 30, 2024 / 6:17 pm edt / cbs news the first ever felony conviction of a former president   and one who is again running for the office   has raised legal questions about whether a president may pardon himself. a new york jury in former president donald trump's "hush money" trial found him guilty thursday of violating the law by falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to adult film star stormy daniels before the 2016 election. trump is still facing separate federal charges in two cases in south florida and washington, d.c., and he was also indicted in state court in georgia. "the big unanswered question is whether the president might be able to pardon himself," jeffrey crouch, an assistant professor of american politics at american university and an expert on executive clemency. "no president has ever tried it, so we don't know what the result would be if it was attempted." the constitution gives the president broad power to pardon federal crimes, except in cases involving impeachment. the president, however, can't pardon state offenses, meaning he cannot pardon himself for the 34 counts on which he was found guilty in new york on thursday. apart from that, in explicit terms, the constitution is quiet. and history and precedent don't offer significant insight, says harvard constitutional scholar mark tushnet. "the arguments about whether a president can pardon himself are not only unsettled in the sense that they haven't come up before, but they're also unsettled in the sense that reasonable lawyers could look at the materials and say either result is legally defensible," tushnet said. one thing that's "settled" in law is that a pardon "has to be for something that the recipient of the pardon has already done," said brian kalt, a professor at michigan law school who wrote about the possibility of self pardons in 2008. "you can't pardon future acts." however, the presidential pardon may be used if the acts have taken place, even if the courts have not yet taken action, the supreme court ruled in 1866. the president's pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment," the high court ruled. in 2020, just before he left office, trump, according to the new york times, considered granting himself, as well as his family and allies, preemptive pardons, arguing his political opponents would use the courts to go after him after he left office. those discussions took place before the jan. 6, 2021, capitol riot that is the subject of the other special counsel investigation of trump, and the times reported that it was not clear whether trump talked about it again afterward. in drafting the constitution, the framers did not discuss a self pardon exception to the president's pardon power. during the federal constitutional convention held in philadelphia in 1787, edmund randolph, of virginia, wanted to make an exception to the vast presidential pardon powers proposed for treason. randolph feared a president could be involved in a treasonous plot, directing his allies to carry out a conspiracy. but founder james wilson, who later became a supreme court justice, argued that if a president is a party to treason, he could be impeached and removed, and then prosecuted. wilson's thinking ultimately prevailed. kalt believes the founders either thought a self pardon was untenable, or never considered it. "they must have thought he couldn't do it, or possibly they just didn't think of it at all," kalt said. during the watergate scandal, as president richard nixon faced the possibility of prosecution and political exile, he asked his lawyers what his options were, and one of the options presented was a self pardon. "it was sort of saying, 'we think you can do this. whether you should is another question but we think you can,'" kalt summarized. "at the same time, the department of justice, the ones who would have been prosecuting nixon, were working up a memo and they said that he couldn't," kalt said. the author of that 1974 memo, acting assistant attorney general mary lawton, examined the constitutional provision vesting the power to grant pardons in the president. "under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, it would seem that the question should be answered in the negative," lawton concluded. trump wasn't the first president to think about pardoning himself, but "the larger context has changed a lot in 50 years," crouch said. "fragmented mass media and political polarization today might actually make it easier for trump to go through with a self pardon than it would have been for nixon," crouch said. kalt suggested that an argument against a presidential self pardon lies in what it means to issue a pardon. "a pardon by definition is something you can only give to someone else," kalt said. "you can't grant something to yourself." he considered the idea that the office of the presidency might be construed as separate from the individual who occupies it. "people on the other side would say, 'well yeah, you can [self pardon] because trump the president can give the pardon to trump the person.' … that's not how i see it," kalt said. and if a candidate wins the presidential election and is inaugurated while serving a prison sentence? does that affect the ability of the new president to execute a self pardon? legally, that wouldn't change anything, kalt said, assuming he still has presidential powers in prison. kalt noted there might be an effort made under the 25th amendment to temporarily transfer his power to the vice president. if litigated, the matter would likely go to the supreme court, kalt and crouch said. "the supreme court would ultimately have to decide on the legitimacy of a self pardon," kalt said. "it is unclear exactly how a self pardon would end up there, but that is the most likely outcome." but it would be very difficult for someone who wished to challenge the pardon to find "standing" in a court of law, and successfully argue that the president's self pardon caused them personal harm, tushner said. "if a president tried to pardon himself, of course it would be legally quite controversial," tushner said. "on the other hand, it would also be quite difficult to challenge a pardon in any court of law. in order to challenge it, somebody would have to have what lawyers call 'standing,' that is, they'd have to be harmed by the president's action, and it's really hard to see who in particular would be harmed by it." but a president can't pardon himself from state crimes. democratic new york gov. kathy hochul is highly unlikely to pardon him following his conviction there. georgia gov. brian kemp can't pardon him if he is later convicted in that state. pardons in the peach state are left to a five member georgia state board of pardons and paroles. they alone are authorized to grant paroles, pardons, reprieves and commutations. kathryn watson is a politics reporter for cbs news digital, based in washington, d.c. © 2023 cbs interactive inc. all rights reserved. copyright ©2025 cbs interactive inc. all rights reserved.

commentary april 24, 2024 crime, justice & safety campaigns & elections courts & law political parties political polarization presidency u.s. states and territories governance studies center for effective public management on april 25, the supreme court will hear oral arguments in trump v. united states. the case, which grew out of donald trump’s effort to overturn his loss in the 2020 election, calls on the supreme court to determine to what extent, if any, a former president enjoys immunity from being prosecuted for committing allegedly criminal acts during his tenure in office and perhaps in the course of his official duties. regardless of the decision, by persuading the supreme court to hear the case, trump may have already achieved victory. if trump prevails on appeal, the charges against him will be dropped, and if he loses, the court’s decision may make concluding this case before the election impossible a trump goal. on august 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted donald trump on four counts related to his actions following the 2020 election. he is charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the united states, by knowingly making false claims of election fraud with the aim of overturning the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election; with conspiring to corruptly obstruct the certification of the presidential election results on january 6, 20211 and with conspiring to engage in actions that illegally interfere with voters’ rights to have their votes counted. trump claims that whether or not he committed the charged crimes, he cannot be tried for them because no court may hold a former president accountable for any actions he took in his official capacity. it would be naive to think that the justices’ political views will not affect their decisions in this case, but it would be equally wrong to think that the justices’ votes will be determined by their politics making a trump victory inevitable. not only are justices’ political leanings intertwined with and affected by their views of the law, but also when the court is defining the powers of the president, it typically seeks to maximize the number of justices who join the majority opinion. chief justice roberts, in particular, seems to prioritize this concern. efforts to achieve unity or something close to it fosters compromises on the language and reach of rulings. the brief that trump’s team filed might be characterized as throwing a number of arguments, none of which is necessarily persuasive, against a wall to see what sticks. this is not a bad strategy. trump needs five votes to win. even if eight justices rejected each of trump’s arguments, if five justices were each persuaded by a different argument, trump would receive the immunity he seeks. consider one of the arguments trump emphasizes, the claim that presidents can only be tried criminally if they have first been impeached. this argument rests on the constitution’s impeachment clause, which provides: judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. trump reads this language as implicitly providing that unless a president is first impeached and convicted for a crime he committed while in office, he cannot be tried in an ordinary court of law for that crime. this is not, however, what the language of the impeachment clause says. in fact, it can be read as saying almost the opposite; namely, that presidents are not above the law and may be tried for official actions that violate the criminal law. under this reading, the language providing that presidents may be tried after having been impeached and convicted is there to make it clear that trying a president who has been removed from office after being impeached and convicted does not constitute double jeopardy. it follows from this that trying a president who has been impeached and acquitted is similarly not barred by double jeopardy. on this issue, the government has the more persuasive case. although trump’s attorneys can cite some language around the time of the constitution’s adoption which could be read as supporting their interpretation, the evidence from history lends far more support to the government’s position. in rejecting proposals that would have given presidents longer terms or more power, the constitution’s drafters and advocates were clear in not wanting a chief executive who was like a king, whose person was inviolate because he was above the law. moreover, the impeachment clause applies not just to the president and vice president, but to numbers of federal officials. two federal judges have been impeached and convicted by the senate only after they had been prosecuted for the same crimes in ordinary courts of law. if impeachment and conviction were necessary precursors to facing criminal charges, the judges’ trials should never have happened. similarly, one wonders why president ford would have offered a pardon, which presupposes the commission of a crime, and why nixon would have accepted one, if each did not believe that nixon was vulnerable to criminal charges for his watergate related actions.2 in addition, it is interesting, though perhaps technically irrelevant, that when president trump was impeached and tried in the senate for his participation in the events of january 6, his attorneys argued that since his term in office had by then expired, the appropriate remedy was not a trial in the senate on the counts of impeachment, but prosecution in a criminal case. a number of senators, who voted to acquit trump when he was impeached for the events surrounding january 6, seem to have accepted this argument and indicated that they thought a criminal trial was the appropriate venue for assessing trump’s conduct. in addition to these legal and historical arguments, there is a strong argument from policy. in the oral argument at the circuit court, the question that gave trump’s attorney the greatest difficulty was an inquiry into whether a president could order seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival. trump’s attorney tried to duck the question by saying that if a president gave such an order he would be speedily impeached and convicted, but when asked to assume that the president had not been impeached, he acknowledged that on his reading of the constitution, even a president who had ordered the assassination of a political rival would have to have been impeached and convicted before facing a criminal trial. trump’s attorney’s response to the seal team 6 question was not to dismiss it out of hand as something no president would do but was instead to argue that any president who ordered a rival’s assassination would be immediately impeached and convicted. although one might hope for such an outcome, modern political tribalism raises doubts. we know that assembling a mob to interfere with the electoral vote count did not motivate enough republicans to convict trump on the charges the house brought. that those in congress were themselves endangered by trump’s actions also did not move most congressional republicans, nor did trump saying mike pence should be hanged, a bit of hyperbole that might have had tragic results. the framers may have thought that the threat of impeachment would deter the most serious illegal presidential behavior. if this were ever true, the threat rings hollow now.3 today, the threat of being prosecuted criminally after leaving the white house may be essential deterrence. trump argues that unless a criminal law specifically states that presidents are included in its bans, the law does not apply to presidential wrongdoing. since the president is seldom specifically mentioned when crimes are defined, accepting this argument would mean that almost all criminal statutes exclude presidents.4 the argument is both novel and weak, especially in a nation which from the time of its founding has taken pride in the proposition that no person is above the law. indeed, at the start of their deliberations, the framers rejected the possibility of creating a kingship in large part because kings were above the law. even more telling is that accepting this argument guts the impeachment clause’s provision for trying presidents after they have been impeached and convicted. if most criminal laws don’t apply to presidents, no matter how serious the behavior that led to their removal from office, there would be no offense to try them for. trump’s arguments are not all as weak as several of those discussed above. one likely to receive the court’s attention is the claim that marbury v. madison precludes trying former presidents for actions within the sphere of official discretion. marbury is arguably the most revered case in american jurisprudence, for it was in marbury that chief justice john marshall claimed for the supreme court the authority to determine the constitutionality of executive and legislative branch actions. with respect to trump’s argument, which has nothing to do with judicial review, marshall wrote, in relevant part: by the constitution of the united states, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. to aid him … he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders. in such cases, [the officer’s] acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, … there exists … no power to control that discretion. the subjects are political. they respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive … this officer is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. the acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts. the government differs with trump on the implications of the language cited above, especially the italicized portion, and on whether marbury is controlling precedent. the government’s position is that the marbury court’s discussion of a sphere of unreviewable presidential discretion applies only to sitting presidents and that the italicized words should be read in this light. to bolster its argument, the government references cases where courts examined the legality of presidential actions despite the existence of presidential discretion. trump’s brief seeks to avoid the implications of these cases by arguing that in each case, the court’s ruling was directed toward a subordinate and not the president. but marbury too was a case where a subordinate rather than the president was the direct target of the court’s intervention. the language trump’s attorney cites reflects the court’s view that a subordinate who is acting at a president’s direction stands in the president’s shoes. the government also argues that the constitution’s impeachment clause undercuts trump’s marbury based argument, for even on trump’s reading, the clause opens the door to the criminal prosecution of presidents who have been impeached and convicted. nothing in the clause suggests that this is the case only if the presidential actions at issue in the impeachment were not discretionary. even if the court were to side with trump in its reading of marbury, that would not be the end of the matter. remaining issues would be whether the behaviors charged in the trump indictments were both official governmental actions and discretionary. some have argued that the question answers itself because presidents are bound by the law and have no discretion to break it. this argument is unlikely to persuade. not only do presidents arguably have discretion to break some laws, but a president may not know whether laws will be broken when he commands a subordinate to take an action. finally, trump claims that to open a president up to criminal prosecution after he leaves office poses the danger of inhibiting presidential action to the point where it interferes both with the president’s exercise of his article ii powers and the constitutional scheme for the separation of powers. this is trump’s strongest argument. if he wins a complete victory, it will probably rest on this rationale. the argument on this issue is certain to involve an extensive discussion of nixon v. fitzgerald. fitzgerald grew out of an incident in which arthur fitzgerald, who today we would call a whistleblower, found himself without a job after offending his superiors by testifying to cost of overruns in an air force procurement matter. nixon, it appears, personally approved of a plan that eliminated fitzgerald’s position, and fitzgerald was not offered a comparable position in violation of certain military related civil service protections he enjoyed. after nixon left office, fitzgerald sued nixon and others for damages attributable to his dismissal. the supreme court held that two subordinates who had been involved in the dismissal had only a qualified immunity when sued for what they did, but, by a single vote, the court held that former presidents enjoyed absolute immunity in civil cases for actions taken while they held office. the court feared that if former presidents could be sued, they would be harassed by often meritless lawsuits, and that knowing they were personally vulnerable “could distract a president from his public duties to the detriment of not only the president… but also the nation…” the fitzgerald majority clearly stated that it was only addressing a president’s vulnerability to post term civil suits and that its decision had no implications for whether former presidents enjoyed similar immunity from criminal prosecutions. trump, however, believes that it does. trump’s attorneys argue that if presidents are immune from civil suits, it follows almost a fortiori that they are immune from criminal prosecution because the threat of being criminally prosecuted is more terrifying than the possibility of having to pay money damages. the predictable result, they claim, is that presidents would be more intimidated than they are in civil cases in the exercise of their article ii powers. building on fitzgerald, trump’s attorneys further argue that unless former presidents are immune from criminal liability, they might be harassed not only by their successors in office but also by politically motivated district attorneys in the various states. the government’s response emphasizes laws and precedent. they note that judges who, like the president, are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits based on official actions enjoy no immunity from criminal prosecution. they also point to language in the constitution that protects members of congress from being prosecuted for anything they say in the course of a congressional speech or debate. the argument is that since the constitution’s framers knew how to immunize government officials from criminal prosecution and in fact did so, their failure to provide for presidential immunity reflects a judgment that presidents can be prosecuted for crimes they commit in the course of their official duties. finally, their assessment of what the differences between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions imply is the opposite of that offered by trump’s attorneys. the government argues that criminal prosecutions implicate the public interest to a far greater extent than civil litigation. relatively speaking, the costs of immunizing former presidents from civil lawsuits are small even if deserving individuals cannot recover damages, but letting serious crimes go unpunished imposes substantial costs on the nation. these aspects of the government’s response to the implications of fitzgerald are well argued, but the government’s response to trump’s article ii and separation of powers arguments is weak, probably the weakest part of the government’s brief. they dismiss in a footnote the suggestion that without immunity former presidents may be pursued and harassed by state prosecutors. they support the summary dismissal of this argument by pointing to language in trump v. vance holding that the constitution’s supremacy clause prevents state prosecutors from interfering with a president’s official duties. the problem with this response is that the government has argued throughout its brief that former presidents may be prosecuted for past crimes because they are no longer performing official duties. the government replies in more detail to the suggestion that without immunity presidents may seek to prosecute their predecessors in office, but their response is not fully convincing. it downplays possible threats by arguing that the criminal justice process has many safeguards against unjustified prosecutions, like the need for indictment by a grand jury and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the civil law system lacks. yet, although in theory the criminal justice process is replete with protections for the innocent, the system often falls far short of the ideal. moreover, even if the criminal process’s safeguards worked as intended, mounting a successful defense can be costly. the government is on firmer ground when it points to the ability of article iii courts, including the supreme court, to invalidate politically motivated prosecutions. still, no person, whether president or plumber, wants to be tried for a crime. ed meese, ronald reagan’s attorney general, has submitted an amicus brief in which he argues that the special counsel prosecuting the case was, for several different reasons, not properly appointed. if the court wanted to avoid deciding the difficult constitutional questions the case poses, it could reach out and dispose of the issue by accepting meese’s argument or, without deciding the issue, it could remand the case to the trial court to assess meese’s objections. ducking the presidential immunity question in one of these ways seems unlikely, but it could happen. interestingly, when asked during oral argument in the circuit court whether he would like to address the issues meese raises, trump’s counsel declined the invitation. i expect the invitation was declined for strategic reasons. if the court finds that former presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, it will remand the case to the district court for trial. at that point, trump can challenge the special counsel’s authority to indict and try him. should his challenge be denied, as it almost certainly would be, he might then seek another interlocutory appeal to resolve this issue. whatever might happen on appeal, the 2024 election will be long past. perhaps trump will be tried then if he has lost, though the current urgency will be lacking. if trump has won, he will avoid any trial for at least four years, and whether he will be pursued for actions he took eight years before is doubtful. trump v. united states may appear to leave the court with a binary choice: either trump can be tried on the charges made in the indictment or he has immunity and the government’s case must be dismissed. if the court holds that former presidents may be prosecuted for their arguably official actions, the case will proceed to trial. but even if the court finds that presidents may not be tried for actions taken as president, there is likely to be further litigation. any grant of immunity will almost certainly apply only to a president’s official actions. although trump’s supreme court brief repeatedly assumes that the actions trump took to reverse the 2020 election results were official presidential actions, this is not clear. if the supreme court upholds trump’s argument for immunity, it is nevertheless unlikely to terminate the prosecution. rather, it will return the case to the trial court for a determination of whether trump’s allegedly criminal actions were done in his private capacity as a candidate for election or in his public capacity as a president charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. it would be ironic if a court were to find that trump could not be prosecuted for alleged law breaking because challenging the validity of election results accorded with his duty to take care that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed. related content russell wheeler april 18, 2024 elaine kamarck april 17, 2024 elaine kamarck, elizabeth smith april 15, 2024 author the brookings institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact. we are supported by a diverse array of funders. in line with our values and policies, each brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s). crime, justice & safety campaigns & elections courts & law political parties political polarization presidency u.s. states and territories governance studies north america u.s. states and territories center for effective public management dana r. fisher january 29, 2025 william a. galston, elaine kamarck january 21, 2025 elaine kamarck january 9, 2025 get the latest from brookings the brookings institution is a nonprofit organization based in washington, d.c. our mission is to conduct in depth, nonpartisan research to improve policy and governance at local, national, and global levels. copyright 2025 the brookings institution

trump v. united states91 f. 4th 1173, vacated and remanded. note: where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. the syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions for the convenience of the reader. see united states v. detroit timber & lumber co., 200 u. s. 321, 337. supreme court of the united states syllabus trump v. united states a federal grand jury indicted former president donald j. trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the november 2020 election. the indictment alleged that after losing that election, trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity, arguing 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. the district court denied trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. the d. c. circuit affirmed. both the district court and the d. c. circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. held: under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. there is no immunity for unofficial acts. pp. 5 43. (a) this case is the first criminal prosecution in our nation’s history of a former president for actions taken during his presidency. determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of presidential power under the constitution. the nature of that power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. at least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. as for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. pp. 5 15. (1) article ii of the constitution vests “executive power” in “a president of the united states of america.” §1, cl. 1. the president has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” trump v. vance, 591 u. s. 786, 800. his authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of congress or from the constitution itself.” youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 u. s. 579, 585. in the latter case, the president’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” id., at 638 (jackson, j., concurring). when the president exercises such authority, congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the president’s actions. 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. the court thus concludes that the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. pp. 6 9. (2) not all of the president’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. the reasons that justify the president’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with congress. to determine the president’s immunity in this context, the court looks primarily to the framers’ design of the presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a president resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. p. 9. (i) the framers designed the presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” executive. the federalist no. 70, pp. 471 472 (j. cooke ed. 1961) (a. hamilton). they vested the president with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731, 750. appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the president’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the court has recognized presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” id., at 749, 751, 752, n. 32. in fitzgerald, for instance, the court concluded that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” id., at 756. the court’s “dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the president’s attention during the decisionmaking process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” clinton v. jones, 520 u. s. 681, 694, n. 19. by contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the president, the court has consistently rejected presidential claims of absolute immunity. during the treason trial of former vice president aaron burr, for instance, chief justice marshall rejected president thomas jefferson’s claim that the president could not be subjected to a subpoena. marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” united states v. burr, 25 f. cas. 187, 192 (no. 14,694) (cc va.). and when a subpoena issued to president richard nixon, the court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683, 703. but recognizing “the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in presidential decisionmaking,” it held that a “presumptive privilege” protects presidential communications. id., at 708. because that privilege “relates to the effective discharge of a president’s powers,” id., at 711, the court deemed it “fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution.” id., at 708. pp. 9 12. (ii) criminally prosecuting a president for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. the danger is greater than what led the court to recognize absolute presidential immunity from civil damages liability that the president would be chilled from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” required of an independent executive. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 745. although the president might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than civil damages suits, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent and plainly more likely to distort presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages. the hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a president is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” mcdonnell v. united states, 579 u. s. 550, 575, raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government,” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 751. but there is also a compelling “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement.” vance, 591 u. s., at 808. taking into account these competing considerations, the court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a president’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch, and to enable the president to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. at a minimum, the president must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 754. pp. 12 15. (3) as for a president’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. although presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the president’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. clinton, 520 u. s., at 694, and n. 19. the separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the president’s unofficial acts. p. 15. (b) the first step in deciding whether a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. in this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. it is therefore incumbent upon the court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.” zivotofsky v. clinton, 566 u. s. 189, 201. critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a president’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. the court offers guidance on those issues. pp. 16 32. (1) when the president acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. fitzgerald, 456 u. s., at 757. determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the president’s authority to take that action. but the breadth of the president’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the constitution and laws of the united states frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” id., at 756. the immunity the court has recognized therefore 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). in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives. such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 756. nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. otherwise, presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. ibid. pp. 17 19. (2) with the above principles in mind, the court turns to the conduct alleged in the indictment. certain allegations such as those involving trump’s discussions with the acting attorney general are readily categorized in light of the nature of the president’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. other allegations such as those involving trump’s interactions with the vice president, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public present more difficult questions. pp. 19 30. (i) the indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, trump and his co conspirators attempted to leverage the justice department’s power and authority to convince certain states to replace their legitimate electors with trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. according to the indictment, trump met with the acting attorney general and other senior justice department and white house officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the department to those states regarding such fraud. the indictment further alleges that after the acting attorney general resisted trump’s requests, trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. the government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the justice department involve trump’s use of official power. the allegations in fact plainly implicate trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. the executive branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. nixon, 418 u. s., at 693. and the president’s “management of the executive branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates” such as the attorney general “in their most important duties.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750. the indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the president of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the justice department and its officials. because the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with justice department officials. pp. 19 21. (ii) the indictment next alleges that trump and his co conspirators “attempted to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the january 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” app. 187, indictment ¶10(d). in particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which trump pressured the vice president to reject states’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review. 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. the question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. it is the government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. the court therefore remands to the district court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch. pp. 21 24. (iii) the indictment’s remaining allegations involve trump’s interactions with persons outside the executive branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. in particular, the indictment alleges that trump and his co conspirators attempted to convince certain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their states, and thus electoral votes for trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for trump. after trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his co conspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. on trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. as the government sees it, however, trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the president to take such actions. determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. the court accordingly remands to the district court to determine in the first instance whether trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. pp. 24 28. (iv) the indictment also contains various allegations regarding trump’s conduct in connection with the events of january 6 itself. the alleged conduct largely consists of trump’s communications in the form of tweets and a public address. the president possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” trump v. hawaii, 585 u. s. 667, 701. so most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. there may, however, be contexts in which the president speaks in an unofficial capacity perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. to the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. snyder v. phelps, 562 u. s. 443, 453. whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. this necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the district court. the court therefore remands to the district court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. pp. 28 30. (3) presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. on remand, the district court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a president must be immune from prosecution. and the parties and the district court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. testimony or private records of the president or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. pp. 30 32. (c) trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the impeachment judgment clause requires that impeachment and senate conviction precede a president’s criminal prosecution. but the text of the clause does not address whether and on what conduct a president may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. see art. i, §3, cl. 7. historical evidence likewise lends little support to trump’s position. the federalist papers on which trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting president; they did not endorse or even consider whether the impeachment judgment clause immunizes a former president from prosecution. transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the constitution or the structure of the nation’s government. pp. 32 34. (d) the government takes a similarly broad view, contending that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. on its view, as applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect article ii interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. but questions about whether the president may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding. even if the president were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 32. the constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government.” id., at 751. pp. 34 37. (e) this case poses a question of lasting significance: when may a former president be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency? in answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. the president is not above the law. but under our system of separated powers, the president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. that immunity applies equally to all occupants of the oval office. pp. 41 43. 91 f. 4th 1173, vacated and remanded. roberts, c. j., delivered the opinion of the court, in which thomas, alito, gorsuch, and kavanaugh, jj., joined in full, and in which barrett, j., joined except as to part iii c. thomas, j., filed a concurring opinion. barrett, j., filed an opinion concurring in part. sotomayor, j., filed a dissenting opinion, in which kagan and jackson, jj., joined. jackson, j., filed a dissenting opinion. notice: this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the united states reports. readers are requested to notify the reporter of decisions, supreme court of the united states, washington, d. c. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 23 939 _________________ donald j. trump, petitioner v. united states chief justice roberts delivered the opinion of the court. this case concerns the federal indictment of a former president of the united states for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. we consider the scope of a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution. from january 2017 until january 2021, donald j. trump served as president of the united states. on august 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted him on four counts for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the november 2020 election. the indictment alleged that after losing that election, trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. according to the indictment, trump advanced his goal through five primary means. first, he and his co conspirators “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to . . . change electoral votes for [trump’s] opponent, joseph r. biden, jr., to electoral votes for [trump].” app. 185, indictment ¶10(a). second, trump and his co conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” and “caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the vice president and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on january 6.” id., at 186, ¶10(b). third, trump and his co conspirators attempted to use the justice department “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the justice department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.” id., at 186 187, ¶10(c). fourth, trump and his co conspirators attempted to persuade “the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the january 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” id., at 187, ¶10(d). and when that failed, on the morning of january 6, they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the vice president had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” ibid. fifth, when “a large and angry crowd . . . violently attacked the capitol and halted the proceeding,” trump and his co conspirators “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince members of congress to further delay the certification.” id., at 187 188, ¶10(e). based on this alleged conduct, the indictment charged trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the united states in violation of 18 u. s. c. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.1 trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity. in his view, the conduct alleged in the indictment, properly characterized, was that while he was president he (1) “made public statements about the administration of the federal election”; (2) communicated with senior justice department officials “about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership” of the department; (3) “communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it”; (4) “communicated with the vice president” and with “members of congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification”; and (5) “authorized or directed others to organize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the vice president to exercise his official authority in a manner advocated for by president trump.” motion to dismiss indictment based on presidential immunity in no. 1:23 cr 00257 (dc), ecf doc. 74, p. 9. trump argued that all of the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. id., at 27. and he contended that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, to ensure that he can undertake the especially sensitive duties of his office with bold and unhesitating action. id., at 14, 24. the district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “former presidents do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office.” 2023 wl 8359833, *15 (dc, dec. 1, 2023). the district court recognized that the president is immune from damages liability in civil cases, to protect against the chilling effect such exposure might have on the carrying out of his responsibilities. see nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731, 749 756 (1982). but it reasoned that “the possibility of vexatious post presidency litigation is much reduced in the criminal context” in light of “[t]he robust procedural safeguards attendant to federal criminal prosecutions.” 2023 wl 8359833, *9 *10. the district court declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. see id., at *15. the d. c. circuit affirmed. 91 f. 4th 1173 (2024) (per curiam). citing marbury v. madison, 1 cranch 137 (1803), the court distinguished between two kinds of official acts: discretionary and ministerial. 91 f. 4th, at 1189 1190. it observed that “although discretionary acts are ‘only politically examinable,’ the judiciary has the power to hear cases” involving ministerial acts that an officer is directed to perform by the legislature. ibid. (quoting marbury, 1 cranch, at 166). from this distinction, the d. c. circuit concluded that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former president for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the congress’s laws.” 91 f. 4th, at 1191. in the court’s view, the fact that trump’s actions “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion.” id., at 1192. the d. c. circuit thus concluded that trump had “no structural immunity from the charges in the indictment.” ibid. like the district court, the d. c. circuit declined to analyze the actions described in the indictment to determine whether they involved official acts. see id., at 1205, n. 14. we granted certiorari to consider the following question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” 601 u. s. ___ (2024). this case is the first criminal prosecution in our nation’s history of a former president for actions taken during his presidency. we are called upon to consider whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed. doing so requires careful assessment of the scope of presidential power under the constitution. we undertake that responsibility conscious that we must not confuse “the issue of a power’s validity with the cause it is invoked to promote,” but must instead focus on the “enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our republic.” youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 u. s. 579, 634 (1952) (jackson, j., concurring). the parties before us do not dispute that a former president can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. see tr. of oral arg. 28. they also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by trump in his unofficial capacity. see id., at 28 30, 36 37, 124. they disagree, however, about whether a former president can be prosecuted for his official actions. trump contends that just as a president is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 756, he must be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts. brief for petitioner 10. and trump argues that the bulk of the indictment’s allegations involve conduct in his official capacity as president. see tr. of oral arg. 30 32. although the government agrees that some official actions are included in the indictment’s allegations, see id., at 125, it maintains that a former president does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any actions, regardless of how they are characterized. see brief for united states 9. we conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. at least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. as for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. at the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient. article ii of the constitution provides that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america.” §1, cl. 1. the president’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” trump v. vance, 591 u. s. 786, 800 (2020). they include, for instance, commanding the armed forces of the united states; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states; and appointing public ministers and consuls, the justices of this court, and officers of the united states. see §2. he also has important foreign relations responsibilities: making treaties, appointing ambassadors, recognizing foreign governments, meeting foreign leaders, overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, and managing matters related to terrorism, trade, and immigration. see §§2, 3. domestically, he must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” §3, and he bears responsibility for the actions of the many departments and agencies within the executive branch. he also plays a role in lawmaking by recommending to congress the measures he thinks wise and signing or vetoing the bills congress passes. see art. i, §7, cl. 2; art. ii, §3. no matter the context, the president’s authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of congress or from the constitution itself.” youngstown, 343 u. s., at 585. in the latter case, the president’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” id., at 638 (jackson, j., concurring). when the president exercises such authority, he may act even when the measures he takes are “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of congress.” id., at 637. the exclusive constitutional authority of the president “disabl[es] the congress from acting upon the subject.” id., at 637 638. and the courts have “no power to control [the president’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the constitution. marbury, 1 cranch, at 166. if the president claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. youngstown, 343 u. s., at 655 (jackson, j., concurring). in youngstown, for instance, we held that president truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the nation’s steel mills. see id., at 582 589 (majority opinion). but once it is determined that the president acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination. the constitution, for example, vests the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the united states” in the president. art. ii, §2, cl. 1. during and after the civil war, president lincoln offered a full pardon, with restoration of property rights, to anyone who had “engaged in the rebellion” but agreed to take an oath of allegiance to the union. united states v. klein, 13 wall. 128, 139 141 (1872). but in 1870, congress enacted a provision that prohibited using the president’s pardon as evidence of restoration of property rights. id., at 143 144. chief justice chase held the provision unconstitutional because it “impair[ed] the effect of a pardon, and thus infring[ed] the constitutional power of the executive.” id., at 147. “to the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon,” and the “legislature cannot change the effect of such a pardon any more than the executive can change a law.” id., at 147 148. the president’s authority to pardon, in other words, is “conclusive and preclusive,” “disabling the congress from acting upon the subject.” youngstown, 343 u. s., at 637 638 (jackson, j., concurring). some of the president’s other constitutional powers also fit that description. “the president’s power to remove and thus supervise those who wield executive power on his behalf,” for instance, “follows from the text of article ii.” seila law llc v. consumer financial protection bureau, 591 u. s. 197, 204 (2020). we have thus held that congress lacks authority to control the president’s “unrestricted power of removal” with respect to “executive officers of the united states whom he has appointed.” myers v. united states, 272 u. s. 52, 106, 176 (1926); see youngstown, 343 u. s., at 638, n. 4 (jackson, j., concurring) (citing the president’s “exclusive power of removal in executive agencies” as an example of “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority); cf. seila law, 591 u. s., at 215 (noting only “two exceptions to the president’s unrestricted removal power”). the power “to control recognition determinations” of foreign countries is likewise an “exclusive power of the president.” zivotofsky v. kerry, 576 u. s. 1, 32 (2015). congressional commands contrary to the president’s recognition determinations are thus invalid. ibid. 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. but of course not all of the president’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. as justice robert jackson recognized in youngstown, the president sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 u. s., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion). the reasons that justify the president’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with congress. we recognize that only a limited number of our prior decisions guide determination of the president’s immunity in this context. that is because proceedings directly involving a president have been uncommon in our nation, and “decisions of the court in this area” have accordingly been “rare” and “episodic.” dames & moore v. regan, 453 u. s. 654, 661 (1981). to resolve the matter, therefore, we look primarily to the framers’ design of the presidency within the separation of powers, our precedent on presidential immunity in the civil context, and our criminal cases where a president resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. the president “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme,” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 749, as “the only person who alone composes a branch of government,” trump v. mazars usa, llp, 591 u. s. 848, 868 (2020). the framers “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution of the laws by placing in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual the ultimate authority that, in respect to the other branches, the constitution divides among many.” clinton v. jones, 520 u. s. 681, 712 (1997) (breyer, j., concurring in judgment). they “deemed an energetic executive essential to ‘the protection of the community against foreign attacks,’ ‘the steady administration of the laws,’ ‘the protection of property,’ and ‘the security of liberty.’ ” seila law, 591 u. s., at 223 224 (quoting the federalist no. 70, p. 471 (j. cooke ed. 1961) (a. hamilton)). the purpose of a “vigorous” and “energetic” executive, they thought, was to ensure “good government,” for a “feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government.” id., at 471 472. the framers accordingly vested the president with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750. he must make “the most sensitive and far reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system.” id., at 752. there accordingly “exists the greatest public interest” in providing the president with “ ‘the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.” ibid. (quoting ferri v. ackerman, 444 u. s. 193, 203 (1979)). appreciating the “unique risks to the effective functioning of government” that arise when the president’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” we have recognized presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 749, 751, 752, n. 32. in nixon v. fitzgerald, for instance, we recognized that as “a functionally mandated incident of [his] unique office,” a former president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” id., at 749. that case involved a terminated air force employee who sued former president richard nixon for damages, alleging that nixon approved an air force reorganization that wrongfully led to his firing. in holding that nixon was immune from that suit, “our dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the president’s attention during the decisionmaking process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” clinton, 520 u. s., at 694, n. 19. “[t]he singular importance of the president’s duties” implicating “matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings,’ ” coupled with “the sheer prominence of [his] office,” heightens the prospect of private damages suits that would threaten such diversion. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 751 753 (quoting pierson v. ray, 386 u. s. 547, 554 (1967)). we therefore concluded that the president must be absolutely immune from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 756. by contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the president, we have consistently rejected presidential claims of absolute immunity. for instance, during the treason trial of former vice president aaron burr, chief justice marshall rejected president thomas jefferson’s claim that the president could not be subjected to a subpoena. marshall reasoned that “the law does not discriminate between the president and a private citizen.” united states v. burr, 25 f. cas. 30, 34 (no. 14,692d) (cc va. 1807) (burr i). because a president does not “stand exempt from the general provisions of the constitution,” including the sixth amendment’s guarantee that those accused shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for their defense, a subpoena could issue. id., at 33 34. marshall acknowledged, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s]” that “ought not on light ground to be forced into public view.” united states v. burr, 25 f. cas. 187, 192 (no. 14,694) (cc va. 1807) (burr ii); see also burr i, 25 f. cas., at 37 (stating that nothing before the court showed that the document in question “contain[ed] any matter the disclosure of which would endanger the public safety”). and he noted that a court may not “be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” burr ii, 25 f. cas., at 192. similarly, when a subpoena issued to president nixon to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and advisers, this court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege,” given the “constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions.” united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683, 703, 707 (1974). but we simultaneously recognized “the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in presidential decisionmaking,” as well as the need to protect “communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” id., at 705, 708. because the president’s “need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts,” we held that a “presumptive privilege” protects presidential communications. id., at 706, 708. that privilege, we explained, “relates to the effective discharge of a president’s powers.” id., at 711. we thus deemed it “fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution.” id., at 708. criminally prosecuting a president for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession, as in burr and nixon. the danger is akin to, indeed greater than, what led us to recognize absolute presidential immunity from civil damages liability that the president would be chilled from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” required of an independent executive. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 745. although the president might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than the range of civil damages suits that might be brought by various plaintiffs, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent. potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages. the hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a president is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” mcdonnell v. united states, 579 u. s. 550, 575 (2016), raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government,” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 751. a president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office. and if a former president’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the executive branch” may be significantly undermined. vance, 591 u. s., at 800. the framers’ design of the presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the “vigor[ ]” and “energy” of the executive. the federalist no. 70, at 471 472. we must, however, “recognize[ ] the countervailing interests at stake.” vance, 591 u. s., at 799. federal criminal laws seek to redress “a wrong to the public” as a whole, not just “a wrong to the individual.” huntington v. attrill, 146 u. s. 657, 668 (1892). there is therefore a compelling “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement.” vance, 591 u. s., at 808. the president, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them. chief justice marshall’s decisions in burr and our decision in nixon recognized the distinct interests present in criminal prosecutions. although burr acknowledged that the president’s official papers may be privileged and publicly unavailable, it did not grant him an absolute exemption from responding to subpoenas. see burr ii, 25 f. cas., at 192; burr i, 25 f. cas., at 33 34. nixon likewise recognized a strong protection for the president’s confidential communications a “presumptive privilege” but it did not entirely exempt him from providing evidence in criminal proceedings. 418 u. s., at 708. taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a president’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch, and to enable the president to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. indeed, if presumptive protection for the president is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the president himself for his official actions. at a minimum, the president must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 754. but as we explain below, the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute. see part iii b, infra. because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it. “[o]ne case” in more than “two centuries does not afford enough experience” to definitively and comprehensively determine the president’s scope of immunity from criminal prosecution. mazars, 591 u. s., at 871. as for a president’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. the principles we set out in clinton v. jones confirm as much. when paula jones brought a civil lawsuit against then president bill clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as president. 520 u. s., at 684. although presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the president’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. id., at 694, and n. 19. the “ ‘justifying purposes’ ” of the immunity we recognized in fitzgerald, and the one we recognize today, are not that the president must be immune because he is the president; rather, they are to ensure that the president can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressures or distortions. 520 u. s., at 694, and n. 19 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 755). “[i]t [is] the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who perform[s] it, that inform[s] our immunity analysis.” forrester v. white, 484 u. s. 219, 229 (1988). the separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the president’s unofficial acts.2 determining whether a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles we have laid out to his conduct at issue. the first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. in this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis. because those courts categorically rejected any form of presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial. neither party has briefed that issue before us (though they discussed it at oral argument in response to questions). and like the underlying immunity question, that categorization raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions about the powers of the president and the limits of his authority under the constitution. as we have noted, there is little pertinent precedent on those subjects to guide our review of this case a case that we too are deciding on an expedited basis, less than five months after we granted the government’s request to construe trump’s emergency application for a stay as a petition for certiorari, grant that petition, and answer the consequential immunity question. see 601 u. s., at ___. given all these circumstances, it is particularly incumbent upon us to be mindful of our frequent admonition that “[o]urs is a court of final review and not first view.” zivotofsky v. clinton, 566 u. s. 189, 201 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a president’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. we offer guidance on those issues below. certain allegations such as those involving trump’s discussions with the acting attorney general are readily categorized in light of the nature of the president’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. other allegations such as those involving trump’s interactions with the vice president, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public present more difficult questions. although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance. distinguishing the president’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. when the president acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 757. determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the president’s authority to take that action. but the breadth of the president’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the constitution and laws of the united states “in a broad variety of areas, many of them highly sensitive,” frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” id., at 756. 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. for instance, when fitzgerald contended that his dismissal violated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 u. s., at 756. otherwise, presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. ibid. with these principles in mind, we turn to the conduct alleged in the indictment. the indictment broadly alleges that trump and his co conspirators sought to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.” app. 183, indictment ¶7. it charges that they conspired to obstruct the january 6 congressional proceeding at which electoral votes are counted and certified, and the winner of the election is certified as president elect. id., at 181 185, ¶¶4, 7, 9. as part of this conspiracy, trump and his co conspirators allegedly attempted to leverage the justice department’s power and authority to convince certain states to replace their legitimate electors with trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. see id., at 215 220, ¶¶70 85. according to the indictment, trump met with the acting attorney general and other senior justice department and white house officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the department to those states regarding such fraud. see, e.g., id., at 217, 219 220, ¶¶77, 84. the indictment further alleges that after the acting attorney general resisted trump’s requests, trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. see, e.g., id., at 216 217, ¶¶74, 77. the government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the justice department involve trump’s “use of official power.” brief for united states 46; see id., at 10 11; tr. of oral arg. 125. the allegations in fact plainly implicate trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “[i]nvestigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.” brief for united states 19 (quoting morrison v. olson, 487 u. s. 654, 706 (1988) (scalia, j., dissenting)). and the executive branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. nixon, 418 u. s., at 693; see united states v. texas, 599 u. s. 670, 678 679 (2023) (“under article ii, the executive branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’ ” (quoting transunion llc v. ramirez, 594 u. s. 413, 429 (2021))). the president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his attorney general and other justice department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” art. ii, §3. and the attorney general, as head of the justice department, acts as the president’s “chief law enforcement officer” who “provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.’ ” mitchell v. forsyth, 472 u. s. 511, 520 (1985) (quoting art. ii, §1, cl. 8). investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the executive branch,” heckler v. chaney, 470 u. s. 821, 832 (1985), and the constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the president, art. ii, §1. for that reason, trump’s threatened removal of the acting attorney general likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” presidential authority. as we have explained, the president’s power to remove “executive officers of the united states whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by congress or reviewed by the courts. myers, 272 u. s., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. the president’s “management of the executive branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates” such as the attorney general “in their most important duties.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). the indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the president of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the justice department and its officials. app. 186 187, indictment ¶10(c). and the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with justice department officials. the indictment next alleges that trump and his co conspirators “attempted to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the january 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” id., at 187, ¶10(d). in particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which trump pressured the vice president to reject states’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review. see, e.g., id., at 222 224, 226, ¶¶90, 92 93, 97. the government explained at oral argument that although it “has not yet had to come to grips with how [it] would analyze” trump’s interactions with the vice president, there is “support” to characterize that conduct as official. tr. of oral arg. 128. indeed, our constitutional system anticipates that the president and vice president will remain in close contact regarding their official duties over the course of the president’s term in office. these two officials are the only ones “elected by the entire nation.” seila law, 591 u. s., at 224; see art. ii, §1. the constitution provides that “the vice president shall become president” in the case of “the removal of the president from office or of his death or resignation.” amdt. 25, §1. it also “empowers the vice president, together with a majority of the ‘principal officers of the executive departments,’ to declare the president ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’ ” freytag v. commissioner, 501 u. s. 868, 886 887 (1991) (quoting amdt. 25, §4). and article i of course names the vice president as president of the senate and gives him a tiebreaking vote. §3, cl. 4. it is thus important for the president to discuss official matters with the vice president to ensure continuity within the executive branch and to advance the president’s agenda in congress and beyond. the vice president may in practice also serve as one of the president’s closest advisers. the office of legal counsel has explained that within the executive branch, the vice president’s “sole function [is] advising and assisting the president.” whether the office of the vice president is an ‘agency’ for purposes of the freedom of information act, 18 op. olc 10 (1994). indeed, the “twelfth amendment was brought about” to avoid the “manifestly intolerable” situation that occurred “[d]uring the john adams administration,” when “we had a president and vice president of different parties.” ray v. blair, 343 u. s. 214, 224, n. 11 (1952). the president and vice president together “are the senior officials of the executive branch of government” and therefore “must formulate, explain, advocate, and defend policies” of the president’s administration. payment of expenses associated with travel by the president and vice president, 6 op. olc 214, 215 (1982). as the president’s second in command, the vice president has historically performed important functions “at the will and as the representative of the president.” participation of the vice president in the affairs of the executive branch, 1 supp. op. olc 214, 220 (1961). president woodrow wilson’s vice president, for instance, “presided over a few cabinet meetings while wilson was in france negotiating” the treaty of versailles after world war i. h. relyea, the law: the executive office of the vice president: constitutional and legal considerations, 40 presidential studies q. 327, 328 (2010). during president franklin roosevelt’s administration, the vice president “became a regular participant in cabinet deliberations a practice that was continued by each succeeding president.” ibid. and when president dwight eisenhower “suffered three major illnesses while in office . . . vice president richard nixon consulted with the cabinet and developed a procedure for relaying important matters to the president.” presidential succession and delegation in case of disability, 5 op. olc 91, 102 (1981). at the president’s discretion, “the vice president may engage in activities ranging into the highest levels of diplomacy and negotiation and may do so anywhere in the world.” 1 supp. op. olc, at 220. domestically, he may act as the president’s delegate to perform any duties “co extensive with the scope of the president’s power of delegation.” ibid. 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. the question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. when the vice president presides over the january 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as president of the senate. ibid. despite the vice president’s expansive role of advising and assisting the president within the executive branch, the vice president’s article i responsibility of “presiding over the senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” memorandum from l. silberman, deputy atty. gen., to r. burress, office of the president, re: conflict of interest problems arising out of the president’s nomination of nelson a. rockefeller to be vice president under the twenty fifth amendment to the constitution 2 (aug. 28, 1974). with respect to the certification proceeding in particular, congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 u. s. c. §15, and the president plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. so the government may argue that consideration of the president’s communications with the vice president concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 754; see supra, at 14. at the same time, however, the president may frequently rely on the vice president in his capacity as president of the senate to advance the president’s agenda in congress. when the senate is closely divided, for instance, the vice president’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the president’s nominees and passing laws that align with the president’s policies. applying a criminal prohibition to the president’s conversations discussing such matters with the vice president even though they concern his role as president of the senate may well hinder the president’s ability to perform his constitutional functions. it is ultimately the government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. we therefore remand to the district court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch. the indictment’s remaining allegations cover a broad range of conduct. unlike the allegations describing trump’s communications with the justice department and the vice president, these remaining allegations involve trump’s interactions with persons outside the executive branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. many of the remaining allegations, for instance, cover at great length events arising out of communications that trump and his co conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in arizona, georgia, michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin regarding those states’ certification of electors. see app. 192 207, indictment ¶¶13 52. specifically, the indictment alleges that trump and his co conspirators attempted to convince those officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their states, and thus electoral votes for trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for trump. see id., at 185 186, ¶10(a). after trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his co conspirators allegedly developed a plan “to marshal individuals who would have served as [trump’s] electors, had he won the popular vote” in arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, new mexico, pennsylvania, and wisconsin, “and cause those individuals to make and send to the vice president and congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors.” id., at 208, ¶53. if the plan worked, “the submission of these fraudulent slates” would position the vice president to “open and count the fraudulent votes” at the certification proceeding and set up “a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of biden as president elect.” id., at 208 209, ¶¶53, 54(b). according to the indictment, trump used his campaign staff to effectuate the plan. see, e.g., id., at 210, 212 213, ¶¶55, 63. on the same day that the legitimate electors met in their respective jurisdictions to cast their votes, the indictment alleges that trump’s “fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings in the seven tar geted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots” in his favor. id., at 214, ¶66. those ballots “were mailed to the president of the senate, the archivist of the united states, and others.” ibid., ¶67. at oral argument, trump appeared to concede that at least some of these acts those involving “private actors” who “helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding” at the direction of trump and a co conspirator entail “private” conduct. tr. of oral arg. 29 30. he later asserted, however, that asking “the chairwoman of the republican national committee . . . to gather electors” qualifies as official conduct because “the organization of alternate slates of electors is based on, for example, the historical example of president grant as something that was done pursuant to and ancillary and preparatory to the exercise of ” a core presidential power. id., at 37; see also id., at 25 (discussing the “historical precedent . . . of president grant sending federal troops to louisiana and mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the republican electors got certified in those two cases, which delivered the election to rutherford b. hayes”). he also argued that it is “[a]bsolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on . . . the integrity of a federal election.” id., at 38. the government disagreed, contending that this alleged conduct does not qualify as “official conduct” but as “campaign conduct.” id., at 124 125. on trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. of course, the president’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws passed by congress. art. ii, §3. and the president’s broad power to speak on matters of public concern does not exclude his public communications regarding the fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he is running for re election. cf. hawaii, 585 u. s., at 701. similarly, the president may speak on and discuss such matters with state officials even when no specific federal responsibility requires his communication to encourage them to act in a manner that promotes the president’s view of the public good. as the government sees it, however, these allegations encompass nothing more than trump’s “private scheme with private actors.” brief for united states 44. in its view, trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the president to not only organize alternate slates of electors but also cause those electors unapproved by any state official to transmit votes to the president of the senate for counting at the certification proceeding, thus interfering with the votes of states’ properly appointed electors. indeed, the constitution commits to the states the power to “appoint” presidential electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” art. ii, §1, cl. 2; see burroughs v. united states, 290 u. s. 534, 544 (1934). “article ii, §1’s appointments power,” we have said, “gives the states far reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint.” chiafalo v. washington, 591 u. s. 578, 588 589 (2020). by contrast, the federal government’s role in appointing electors is limited. congress may prescribe when the state appointed electors shall meet, and it counts and certifies their votes. art. ii, §1, cls. 3, 4. the president, meanwhile, plays no direct role in the process, nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do. and the framers, wary of “cabal, intrigue and corruption,” specifically excluded from service as electors “all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.” the federalist no. 68, at 459 (a. hamilton); see art. ii, §1, cl. 2. determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. see app. 192 215, indictment ¶¶13 69. unlike trump’s alleged interactions with the justice department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function. the necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. and the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. the concerns we noted at the outset the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties thus become more prominent. we accordingly remand to the district court to determine in the first instance with the benefit of briefing we lack whether trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. finally, the indictment contains various allegations regarding trump’s conduct in connection with the events of january 6 itself. it alleges that leading up to the january 6 certification proceeding, trump issued a series of tweets (to his nearly 89 million followers) encouraging his supporters to travel to washington, d. c., on that day. see, e.g., app. 221, 225 227, indictment ¶¶87 88, 96, 100. trump and his co conspirators addressed the gathered public that morning, asserting that certain states wanted to recertify their electoral votes and that the vice president had the power to send those states’ ballots back for recertification. id., at 228 230, ¶¶103 104. trump then allegedly “directed the crowd in front of him to go to the capitol” to pressure the vice president to do so at the certification proceeding. id., at 228 230, ¶104. when it became public that the vice president would not use his role at the certification proceeding to determine which electoral votes should be counted, the crowd gathered at the capitol “broke through barriers cordoning off the capitol grounds” and eventually “broke into the building.” id., at 230 231, ¶¶107, 109. the alleged conduct largely consists of trump’s communications in the form of tweets and a public address. the president possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” hawaii, 585 u. s., at 701; cf. lindke v. freed, 601 u. s. 187, 191 (2024). as the sole person charged by the constitution with executing the laws of the united states, the president oversees and thus will frequently speak publicly about a vast array of activities that touch on nearly every aspect of american life. indeed, a long recognized aspect of presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest. he is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the federal government for instance, to comfort the nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. for these reasons, most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. there may, however, be contexts in which the president, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. to the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. snyder v. phelps, 562 u. s. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). but “there is not always a clear line between [the president’s] personal and official affairs.” mazars, 591 u. s., at 868. the analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging. the indictment reflects these challenges. it includes only select tweets and brief snippets of the speech trump delivered on the morning of january 6, omitting its full text or context. see app. 228 230, indictment ¶104. whether the tweets, that speech, and trump’s other communications on january 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. this necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the district court. we therefore remand to the district court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. the essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. mitchell, 472 u. s., at 525. presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. as we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. see part iii b 1, supra. on remand, the district court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a president must be immune from prosecution. and the parties and the district court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. the government does not dispute that if trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. brief for united states 46. but it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the president’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election fraud claims.” id., at 46, 48. that proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. it would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly invite the jury to examine acts for which a president is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge. but “[t]he constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” cummings v. missouri, 4 wall. 277, 325 (1867). and the government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined. if official conduct for which the president is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 756. the president’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the president’s official decisionmaking will be distorted. see clinton, 520 u. s., at 694, n. 19. the government asserts that these weighty concerns can be managed by the district court through the use of “evidentiary rulings” and “jury instructions.” brief for united states 46. but such tools are unlikely to protect adequately the president’s constitutional prerogatives. presidential acts frequently deal with “matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings.’ ” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752 (quoting pierson, 386 u. s., at 554). allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the president is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the president’s policies and performance while in office. the prosaic tools on which the government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former president. cf. nixon, 418 u. s., at 706. although such tools may suffice to protect the constitutional rights of individual criminal defendants, the interests that underlie presidential immunity seek to protect not the president himself, but the institution of the presidency.3 trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. he contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the impeachment judgment clause requires that impeachment and senate conviction precede a president’s criminal prosecution. brief for petitioner 16. the text of the clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. it states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states.” art. i, §3, cl. 7. it then specifies that “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” ibid. (emphasis added). the clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. by its own terms, the clause does not address whether and on what conduct a president may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. historical evidence likewise lends little support to trump’s position. for example, justice story reasoned that without the clause’s clarification that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” may nevertheless follow senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 j. story, commentaries on the constitution of the united states §780, p. 251 (1833). james wilson, who served on the committee that drafted the clause and later as a justice of this court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. see 2 documentary history of the ratification of the constitution 492 (m. jensen ed. 1979). and contrary to trump’s contention, alexander hamilton did not disagree. the federalist papers on which trump relies, see brief for petitioner 17 18, concerned the checks available against a sitting president. hamilton noted that unlike “the king of great britain,” the president “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” the federalist no. 69, at 463; see also id., no. 77, at 520 (explaining that the president is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the impeachment judgment clause immunizes a former president from prosecution. the implication of trump’s theory is that a president who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. so if a president manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his presidency, or if congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the president for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. impeachment is a political process by which congress can remove a president who has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” art. ii, §4. transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the constitution or the structure of our government. the government for its part takes a similarly broad view, contending that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. it maintains this view despite agreeing with much of our analysis. for instance, the government does not dispute that congress may not criminalize presidential conduct within the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. see tr. of oral arg. 133 (“[c]ore powers . . . can’t be regulated at all, like the pardon power and veto.”); see also id., at 84 85. and it too accords protection to presidential conduct if subjecting that conduct to generally applicable laws would “raise serious constitutional questions regarding the president’s authority” or cause a “possible conflict with the president’s constitutional prerogatives.” application of 28 u. s. c. §458 to presidential appointments of federal judges, 19 op. olc 350, 351 352 (1995); see brief for united states 26 29; tr. of oral arg. 78. indeed, the executive branch has long held that view. the office of legal counsel has recognized, for instance, that a federal statute generally prohibiting appointments to “ ‘any office or duty in any court’ ” of persons within certain degrees of consanguinity to the judges of such courts would, if applied to the president, infringe his power to appoint federal judges, thereby raising a serious constitutional question. 19 op. olc, at 350 (quoting 28 u. s. c. §458); see id., at 350 352. so it viewed such a statute as not applying to the president. likewise, it has narrowly construed a criminal prohibition on grassroots lobbying to avoid the constitutional issues that would otherwise arise, reasoning that the statute should not “be construed to prohibit the president or executive branch agencies from engaging in a general open dialogue with the public on the administration’s programs and policies.” constraints imposed by 18 u. s. c. §1913 on lobbying efforts, 13 op. olc 300, 304 (1989); see id., at 304 306. the government thus broadly agrees that the president’s official acts are entitled to some degree of constitutional protection. and with respect to the allegations in the indictment before us, the government agrees that at least some of the alleged conduct involves official acts. see tr. of oral arg. 125; cf. id., at 128. yet the government contends that the president should not be considered immune from prosecution for those official acts. see brief for united states 9. on the government’s view, as applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect article ii interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. see tr. of oral arg. 69, 79 80, 154 158. if the president is instead immune from prosecution, a district court’s denial of immunity would be appealable before trial. see mitchell, 472 u. s., at 524 530 (explaining that questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject to suit). the government asserts that the “[r]obust safeguards” available in typical criminal proceedings alleviate the need for pretrial review. brief for united states 20 (boldface and emphasis omitted). first, it points to the justice department’s “longstanding commitment to the impartial enforcement of the law,” id., at 21, as well as the criminal justice system’s further protections: grand juries, a defendant’s procedural rights during trial, and the requirement that the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 22. next, it contends that “existing principles of statutory construction and as applied constitutional challenges” adequately address the separation of powers concerns involved in applying generally applicable criminal laws to a president. id., at 29. finally, the government cites certain defenses that would be available to the president in a particular prosecution, such as the public authority defense or the advice of the attorney general. id., at 29 30; see nardone v. united states, 302 u. s. 379, 384 (1937); tr. of oral arg. 107 108. these safeguards, though important, do not alleviate the need for pretrial review. they fail to address the fact that under our system of separated powers, criminal prohibitions cannot apply to certain presidential conduct to begin with. as we have explained, when the president acts pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, congress cannot as a structural matter regulate such actions, and courts cannot review them. see part ii a, supra. and he is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for his other official actions. see part ii b, supra. questions about whether the president may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding. even if the president were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 32. vulnerability “ ‘to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute.’ ” id., at 752 753, n. 32 (quoting gregoire v. biddle, 177 f. 2d 579, 581 (ca2 1949) (hand, l., c. j.)). the constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 751. as for the government’s assurances that prosecutors and grand juries will not permit political or baseless prosecutions from advancing in the first place, those assurances are available to every criminal defendant and fail to account for the president’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme.” id., at 749. we do not ordinarily decline to decide significant constitutional questions based on the government’s promises of good faith. see united states v. stevens, 559 u. s. 460, 480 (2010) (“we would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly.”). nor do we do so today. as for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. supra, at 24, 28, 30. the principal dissent’s starting premise that unlike speech and debate clause immunity, no constitutional text supports presidential immunity, see post, at 4 6 (opinion of sotomayor, j.) is one that the court rejected decades ago as “unpersuasive.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750, n. 31; see also nixon, 418 u. s., at 705 706, n. 16 (rejecting unanimously a similar argument in the analogous executive privilege context). “[a] specific textual basis has not been considered a prerequisite to the recognition of immunity.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750, n. 31. nor is that premise correct. true, there is no “presidential immunity clause” in the constitution. but there is no “ ‘separation of powers clause’ ” either. seila law, 591 u. s., at 227. yet that doctrine is undoubtedly carved into the constitution’s text by its three articles separating powers and vesting the executive power solely in the president. see ibid. and the court’s prior decisions, such as nixon and fitzgerald, have long recognized that doctrine as mandating certain presidential privileges and immunities, even though the constitution contains no explicit “provision for immunity.” post, at 4; see part ii b 1, supra. neither the dissents nor the government disavow any of those prior decisions. see tr. of oral arg. 76 77. the principal dissent then cites the impeachment judgment clause, arguing that it “clearly contemplates that a former president may be subject to criminal prosecution.” post, at 6. but that clause does not indicate whether a former president may, consistent with the separation of powers, be prosecuted for his official conduct in particular. see supra, at 32 33. and the assortment of historical sources the principal dissent cites are unhelpful for the same reason. see post, at 6 8. as the court has previously noted, relevant historical evidence on the question of presidential immunity is of a “fragmentary character.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 31; see also clinton, 520 u. s., at 696 697; cf. youngstown, 343 u. s., at 634 (jackson, j., concurring) (noting “the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power”). “[t]he most compelling arguments,” therefore, “arise from the constitution’s separation of powers and the judiciary’s historic understanding of that doctrine.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 31. the court’s prior admonition is evident in the principal dissent’s citations. some of its cherry picked sources do not even discuss the president in particular. see, e.g., post, at 7 8 (citing 2 debates on the constitution 177 (j. elliot ed. 1836); 2 j. story, commentaries on the constitution of the united states §780, pp. 250 251 (1833)). and none of them indicate whether he may be prosecuted for his official conduct. see, e.g., post, at 6, 7, n. 2 (citing the federalist no. 69; 4 debates on the constitution, at 109). the principal dissent’s most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of charles pinckney from an 1800 senate debate. see post, at 7. but those statements reflect only the now discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the constitution must not exist. see 3 records of the federal convention of 1787, pp. 384 385 (m. farrand ed. 1911). and pinckney is not exactly a reliable authority on the separation of powers: he went on to state on the same day that “it was wrong to give the nomination of judges to the president” an opinion expressly rejected by the framers. id., at 385. given the framers’ desire for an energetic and vigorous president, the principal dissent’s view that the constitution they designed allows all his actions to be subject to prosecution even the exercise of powers it grants exclusively to him defies credulity. unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” post, at 9. conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no president has ever faced criminal charges let alone for his conduct in office. and accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a president’s immunity from prosecution. all that our nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the court has rendered the president “above the law.” see, e.g., post, at 1, 3, 11, 12, 21, 30 (opinion of sotomayor, j.); post, at 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19 (opinion of jackson, j.). as before, that “rhetorically chilling” contention is “wholly unjustified.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 758, n. 41. like everyone else, the president is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. but unlike anyone else, the president is a branch of government, and the constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. accounting for that reality and ensuring that the president may exercise those powers forcefully, as the framers anticipated he would does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the constitution from which that law derives. the dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the constitution’s separation of powers and the court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the president “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” post, at 18 (opinion of sotomayor, j.); see post, at 26, 29 30; post, at 8 9, 10, 12, 16, 20 21 (opinion of jackson, j.). the dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. for instance, section 371 which has been charged in this case is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.’ ” united states v. johnson, 383 u. s. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting haas v. henkel, 216 u. s. 462, 479 (1910)). virtually every president is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). an enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous president violated that broad statute. without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex presidents could quickly become routine. the enfeebling of the presidency and our government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the framers intended to avoid. ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors. finally, the principal dissent finds it “troubling” that the court does not “designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private.” post, at 27. despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial. the other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the court of providing “no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a president’s conduct.” post, at 13 (opinion of jackson, j.). it would have us exhaustively define every application of presidential immunity. see post, at 13 14. our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. while their confidence may be inspiring, the court adheres to time tested practices instead deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after “revers[ing] on a threshold question,” zivotofsky, 566 u. s., at 201, to obtain “guidance from the litigants [and] the court below,” vidal v. elster, 602 u. s. 286, 328 (2024) (sotomayor, j., concurring in judgment). this case poses a question of lasting significance: when may a former president be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency? our nation has never before needed an answer. but in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. in a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our republic. youngstown, 343 u. s., at 634 (jackson, j., concurring). our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” chief justice john marshall, a friend of the constitution no. v, alexandria gazette, july 5, 1819, in john marshall’s defense of mcculloch v. maryland 190 191 (g. gunther ed. 1969). our first president had such a perspective. in his farewell address, george washington reminded the nation that “a government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.” 35 writings of george washington 226 (j. fitzpatrick ed. 1940). a government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” id., at 226 227. and the way to avoid that cycle, he explained, was to ensure that government powers remained “properly distributed and adjusted.” id., at 226. it is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. the president is not above the law. but congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the constitution. and the system of separated powers designed by the framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. the president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. that immunity applies equally to all occupants of the oval office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. the judgment of the court of appeals for the d. c. circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. it is so ordered. 1 trump contends that the indictment stretches section 1512(c)(2) “far beyond its natural meaning.” brief for petitioner 39, n. 4. as we explained in fischer v. united states, section 1512(c)(2) covers acts that impair “the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or . . . other things used in the proceeding.” 603 u. s. ___, ___ (2024) (slip op., at 16). if necessary, the district court should determine in the first instance whether the section 1512(c)(2) charges may proceed in light of our decision in fischer. 2 our decision in clinton permitted claims alleging unofficial acts to proceed against the sitting president. see 520 u. s., at 684. in the criminal context, however, the justice department “has long recognized” that “the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” brief for united states 9 (citing a sitting president’s amenability to indictment and criminal prosecution, 24 op. olc 222 (2000); emphasis deleted); see tr. for oral arg. 78. 3 justice barrett disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25 27 (opinion of sotomayor, j.). but of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the president performed the official act. and the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the president allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. see 18 u. s. c. §201(b)(2). what the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the president or his advisers probing the official act itself. allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the president’s motivations for his official actions and to second guess their propriety. as we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the president’s exercise of his official duties. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 745, 756 (quoting spalding v. vilas, 161 u. s. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at 18. and such second guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the executive.” trump v. vance, 591 u. s. 786, 805 (2020). supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 23 939 _________________ donald j. trump, petitioner v. united states justice thomas, concurring. few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former president for his official acts. fortunately, the constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. as the court forcefully explains, the framers “deemed an energetic executive essential to . . . the security of liberty,” and our “system of separated powers” accordingly insulates the president from prosecution for his official acts. ante, at 10, 42 (internal quotation marks omitted). to conclude otherwise would hamstring the vigorous executive that our constitution envisions. “while the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.” morrison v. olson, 487 u. s. 654, 710 711 (1988) (scalia, j., dissenting). i write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. in this case, the attorney general purported to appoint a private citizen as special counsel to prosecute a former president on behalf of the united states. but, i am not sure that any office for the special counsel has been “established by law,” as the constitution requires. art. ii, §2, cl. 2. by requiring that congress create federal offices “by law,” the constitution imposes an important check against the president he cannot create offices at his pleasure. if there is no law establishing the office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president. no former president has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. and, that is so despite numerous past presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. if this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the american people. the lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding. the constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. the appointments clause provides: “[the president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the united states, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of department.” art. ii, §2, cl. 2. the constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. the default manner for appointing “officers of the united states” is nomination by the president and confirmation by the senate. ibid. “but the clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: congress may ‘by law’ authorize” one of three specified ac tors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and consent of the senate.” nlrb v. sw general, inc., 580 u. s. 288, 312 (2017) (thomas, j., concurring). as relevant here, a “hea[d] of department” such as the attorney general is one such actor that congress may authorize “by law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. art. ii, §2, cl. 2. before the president or a department head can appoint any officer, however, the constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by law.”1 the constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the president and vice president. see §1. although the constitution contemplates that there will be “other officers of the united states, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by law.” §2, cl. 2. and, “established by law” refers to an office that congress creates “by statute.” lucia v. sec, 585 u. s. 237, 254 (2018) (thomas, j., concurring); see also united states v. maurice, 26 f. cas. 1211, 1213 (no. 15,747) (cc va. 1823) (marshall, c. j.). the limitation on the president’s power to create offices grew out of the founders’ experience with the english monarchy. the king could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. he was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. he not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” the federalist no. 69, p. 421 (c. rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 w. blackstone, commentaries on the laws of england 271 (t. cooley ed. 1871) (“[a]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). that ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the king’s ability to amass too much power”; the king could both create a multitude of offices and then fill them with his supporters. j. mascott, who are “officers of the united states”? 70 stan. l. rev. 443, 492 (2018) (mascott); see also g. wood, the creation of the american republic 1776 1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism”); t. paine, common sense (1776), reprinted in the great works of thomas paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). in fact, one of the grievances raised by the american colonists in declaring their independence was that the king “ha[d] erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” declaration of independence ¶12. the founders thus drafted the constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the president, in this particular, to that of the british king.” the federalist no. 69, at 421. the founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the president the power to fill offices (with the senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. they did so by “imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by law’ rather than through a king like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.” mascott 492 493 (footnote omitted); see also 1 annals of cong. 581 582 (1789) (“the powers relative to offices are partly legislative and partly executive. the legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation”); see also ibid. (describing the power to “designat[e] the man to fill the office” as “of an executive nature”). the constitution thus “giv[es] congress broad authority to establish and organize the executive branch.” seila law llc v. consumer financial protection bureau, 591 u. s. 197, 266 (2020) (kagan, j., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). by keeping the ability to create offices out of the president’s hands, the founders ensured that no president could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. instead, our constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist. longstanding practice from the founding to today comports with this original understanding that congress must create offices by law. the first congress, for instance, routinely and explicitly created offices by statute. see, e.g., §35, 1 stat. 92 93 (creating the offices of attorney general and u. s. attorney for each district); see also §§1 2, id., at 50 (creating offices of secretary of war and his chief clerk); ch. 12, §1, id., at 65 (creating offices within the department of treasury for secretary of the treasury, a comptroller, auditor, treasurer, register, and assistant to the secretary). still today, congress creates the offices that the executive branch may fill. for example, congress has created several offices within the department of justice, including the offices of the attorney general, deputy attorney general, associate attorney general, solicitor general, and assistant attorneys general. see 28 u. s. c. §§503 506. for some agencies, congress has also granted the agency head the power to “appoint such officers and employees . . . as are necessary to execute the functions vested in him.” 7 u. s. c. §610(a) (department of agriculture); see also, e.g., 20 u. s. c. §3461 (department of education); 42 u. s. c. §913 (department of health and human services). in the past, congress has at times expressly created offices similar to the position now occupied by the special counsel. congress created an office for a “special counsel” to investigate the teapot dome scandal and pursue prosecutions. see ch. 16, 43 stat. 6. and, a statute provided for “the appointment of an independent counsel” that we addressed in morrison v. olson. see 28 u. s. c. §592. that statute lapsed, and congress has not since reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel. see §599.2 we cannot ignore the importance that the constitution places on who creates a federal office. to guard against tyranny, the founders required that a federal office be “established by law.” as james madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the legislative and executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 annals of cong. 581. if congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord. it is difficult to see how the special counsel has an office “established by law,” as required by the constitution. when the attorney general appointed the special counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office. see dept. of justice order no. 5559 2022 (nov. 18, 2022). nor did he rely on a statute granting him the authority to appoint officers as he deems fit, as the heads of some other agencies have.3 see supra, at 5. instead, the attorney general relied upon several statutes of a general nature. see order no. 5559 2022 (citing 28 u. s. c. §§509, 510, 515, 533). none of the statutes cited by the attorney general appears to create an office for the special counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose. see, e.g., 43 stat. 6 (“[t]he president is further authorized and directed to appoint . . . special counsel who shall have charge and control of the prosecution of such litigation”). sections 509 and 510 are generic provisions concerning the functions of the attorney general and his ability to delegate authority to “any other officer, employee, or agency.” section 515 contemplates an “attorney specially appointed by the attorney general under law,” thereby suggesting that such an attorney’s office must have already been created by some other law. (emphasis added.) as for §533, it provides that “[t]he attorney general may appoint officials . . . to detect and prosecute crimes against the united states.” (emphasis added.) it is unclear whether an “official” is equivalent to an “officer” as used by the constitution. see lucia, 585 u. s., at 254 255 (opinion of thomas, j.) (considering the meaning of “officer”). regardless, this provision would be a curious place for congress to hide the creation of an office for a special counsel. it is placed in a chapter concerning the federal bureau of investigation (§§531 540d), not the separate chapters concerning u. s. attorneys (§§541 550) or the now lapsed independent counsel (§§591 599).4 to be sure, the court gave passing reference to the cited statutes as supporting the appointment of the special prosecutor in united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683, 694 (1974), but it provided no analysis of those provisions’ text. perhaps there is an answer for why these statutes create an office for the special counsel. but, before this consequen tial prosecution proceeds, we should at least provide a fulsome explanation of why that is so. even if the special counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the attorney general filled that office in compliance with the appointments clause. for example, it must be determined whether the special counsel is a principal or inferior officer. if the former, his appointment is invalid because the special counsel was not nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, as principal officers must be. art. ii, §2, cl. 2. even if he is an inferior officer, the attorney general could appoint him without presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “congress . . . by law vest[ed] the appointment” in the attorney general as a “hea[d] of department.” ibid. so, the special counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the special counsel’s office and gave the attorney general the power to fill it “by law.” whether the special counsel’s office was “established by law” is not a trifling technicality. if congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. given that the special counsel purports to wield the executive branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. our constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and fill offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. morrison, 487 u. s., at 697 (scalia, j., dissenting). there is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it. in this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a president “is not above the law.” but, as the court explains, the president’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. the constitution provides for “an energetic executive,” because such an executive is “essential to . . . the security of liberty.” ante, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). respecting the protections that the constitution provides for the office of the presidency secures liberty. in that same vein, the constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. and, there are serious questions whether the attorney general has violated that structure by creating an office of the special counsel that has not been established by law. those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. we must respect the constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee. 1 although a government official may also be a “nonofficer employe[e],” i set aside that category because it is difficult to see how an official exercising the department of justice’s duties to enforce the criminal law by leading a prosecution could be anything but an officer. lucia v. sec, 585 u. s. 237, 253, n. 1 (2018) (thomas, j., concurring); see sw general, 580 u. s., at 314 (opinion of thomas, j.). if the special counsel were a nonofficer employee, the constitutional problems with this prosecution would only be more serious. for now, i assume without deciding that the special counsel is an officer. 2 to be sure, a few presidents have appointed “special prosecutors” without pointing to any express statutory authorization. see generally t. eastland, ethics, politics and the independent counsel 8 9 (1989) (describing past uses of special prosecutors). but, this court had no occasion to review the constitutionality of those prosecutors’ authority. 3 in fact, congress gave the attorney general the power to appoint “additional officers . . . as he deems necessary” but, only for the bureau of prisons. 18 u. s. c. §4041. 4 regulations remain on the books that contemplate an “outside” special counsel, 28 cfr §600.1 (2023), but i doubt a regulation can create a federal office without underlying statutory authority to do so. supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 23 939 _________________ donald j. trump, petitioner v. united states justice barrett, concurring in part. for reasons i explain below, i do not join part iii c of the court’s opinion. the remainder of the opinion is consistent with my view that the constitution prohibits congress from criminalizing a president’s exercise of core article ii powers and closely related conduct. that said, i would have framed the underlying legal issues differently. the court describes the president’s constitutional protection from certain prosecutions as an “immunity.” as i see it, that term is shorthand for two propositions: the president can challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment, and he can obtain interlocutory review of the trial court’s ruling. there appears to be substantial agreement on the first point. like the court, the dissenting justices and the special counsel all accept that some prosecutions of a president’s official conduct may be unconstitutional. see post, at 16 (opinion of sotomayor, j.); brief for united states 24 30. as for interlocutory review, our precedent recognizes that resolving certain legal issues before trial is necessary to safeguard important constitutional interests here, executive branch independence on matters that article ii assigns to the president’s discretion. properly conceived, the president’s constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow. the court leaves open the possibility that the constitution forbids prosecuting the president for any official conduct, instructing the lower courts to address that question in the first instance. see ante, at 14. i would have answered it now. though i agree that a president cannot be held criminally liable for conduct within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority and closely related acts, ante, at 8 9, the constitution does not vest every exercise of executive power in the president’s sole discretion, youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 u. s. 579, 637 (1952) (jackson, j., concurring).1 congress has concurrent authority over many government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the president’s official conduct, including by criminal statute. article ii poses no barrier to prosecution in such cases. i would thus assess the validity of criminal charges predicated on most official acts i.e., those falling outside of the president’s core executive power in two steps. the first question is whether the relevant criminal statute reaches the president’s official conduct. not every broadly worded statute does. for example, §956 covers conspiracy to murder in a foreign country and does not expressly exclude the president’s decision to, say, order a hostage rescue mission abroad. 18 u. s. c. §956(a). the underlying murder statute, however, covers only “unlawful” killings. §1111. the office of legal counsel has interpreted that phrase to reflect a public authority exception for official acts involving the military and law enforcement. memorandum from d. barron, acting assistant atty. gen., to e. holder, atty. gen., re: applicability of federal criminal laws and the constitution to contemplated lethal operations against shaykh anwar al aulaqi 12 19 (july 16, 2010); see also brief for united states 29 30; post, at 16, and n. 3 (sotomayor, j., dissenting). i express no view about the merits of that interpretation, but it shows that the threshold question of statutory interpretation is a nontrivial step. if the statute covers the alleged official conduct, the prosecution may proceed only if applying it in the circumstances poses no “ ‘dange[r] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ ” ante, at 14 (quoting nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731, 754 (1982)). on remand, the lower courts will have to apply that standard to various allegations involving the president’s official conduct.2 some of those allegations raise unsettled questions about the scope of article ii power, see ante, at 21 28, but others do not. for example, the indictment alleges that the president “asked the arizona house speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing” about election fraud claims. app. 193. the president has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prose  cuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the arizona house speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power. this two step analysis considering first whether the statute applies and then whether its application to the particular facts is constitutional is similar to the approach that the special counsel presses in this court. brief for united states 24 30. it is also our usual approach to considering the validity of statutes in situations raising a constitutional question. see, e.g., seila law llc v. consumer financial protection bureau, 591 u. s. 197, 213, 229 (2020).3 an important difference in this context is that the president is entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling. see ante, at 36. a criminal defendant in federal court normally must wait until after trial to seek review of the trial court’s refusal to dismiss charges. see united states v. macdonald, 435 u. s. 850, 853 854 (1978); see also 18 u. s. c. §3731. but where trial itself threatens certain constitutional interests, we have treated the trial court’s resolution of the issue as a “final decision” for purposes of appellate jurisdiction. macdonald, 435 u. s., at 854 856; see 28 u. s. c. §1291; see also §1257. the present circumstances fall squarely within our precedent authorizing interlocutory review. when a president moves to dismiss an indictment on article ii grounds, he “makes no challenge whatsoever to the merits of the charge against him.” abney v. united states, 431 u. s. 651, 659 (1977) (allowing interlocutory appeal of rejection of double jeopardy defense). he instead contests whether the constitution allows congress to criminalize the alleged conduct, a question that is “collateral to, and separable from” his guilt or innocence. ibid. moreover, the president’s executive branch authority “would be significantly undermined if appellate review” of the constitutional challenge “were postponed until after conviction and sentence.” id., at 660; see also helstoski v. meanor, 442 u. s. 500, 507 (1979) (allowing interlocutory appeal of refusal to dismiss an indictment on speech or debate clause grounds). the prospect of a trial court erroneously allowing the prosecution to proceed poses a unique danger to the “independence of the executive branch.” trump v. vance, 591 u. s. 786, 800 (2020). as the court explains, the possibility that the president will be made to defend his official conduct before a jury after he leaves office could distort his decisions while in office. ante, at 13 14, 36. these article ii concerns do not insulate the president from prosecution. but they do justify interlocutory review of the trial court’s final decision on the president’s as applied constitutional challenge. see helstoski, 442 u. s., at 507 508; abney, 431 u. s., at 659 661; see also reply brief for united states in no. 23 624, p. 5 (agreeing that the president “has a right to an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s rejection of his immunity defense”). i understand most of the court’s opinion to be consistent with these views. i do not join part iii c, however, which holds that the constitution limits the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a president, beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege. see ante, at 30 32. i disagree with that holding; on this score, i agree with the dissent. see post, at 25 27 (sotomayor, j., dissenting). the constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable. consider a bribery prosecution a charge not at issue here but one that provides a useful example. the federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 u. s. c. §201(c). the constitution, of course, does not authorize a president to seek or accept bribes, so the government may prosecute him if he does so. see art. ii, §4 (listing “bribery” as an impeachable offense); see also memorandum from l. silberman, deputy atty. gen., to r. burress, office of the president, re: conflict of interest problems arising out of the president’s nomination of nelson a. rockefeller to be vice president under the twenty fifth amendment to the constitution 5 (aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the president). yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. to make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the president’s criminal liability. i appreciate the court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the president cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury. ante, at 31. but the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case by case basis. most importantly, a trial court can exclude evidence of the president’s protected conduct “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice” or “confusing the issues.” fed. rule evid. 403; see also rule 105 (requiring the court to “restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”). the balance is more likely to favor admitting evidence of an official act in a bribery prosecution, for instance, than one in which the protected conduct has little connection to the charged offense. and if the evidence comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it only for lawful purposes. see richardson v. marsh, 481 u. s. 200, 206 207 (1987). i see no need to depart from that familiar and time tested procedure here. * * * the constitution does not insulate presidents from criminal liability for official acts. but any statute regulating the exercise of executive power is subject to a constitutional challenge. see, e.g., collins v. yellen, 594 u. s. 220, 235 236 (2021); zivotofsky v. clinton, 566 u. s. 189, 192 194 (2012); free enterprise fund v. public company accounting oversight bd., 561 u. s. 477, 487 488 (2010). a criminal statute is no exception. thus, a president facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment. if that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial. 1 consistent with our separation of powers precedent, i agree with the court that the supervision and removal of appointed, high ranking justice department officials falls within the president’s core executive power. see seila law llc v. consumer financial protection bureau, 591 u. s. 197, 213 215 (2020); ante, at 19 21. i do not understand the court to hold that all exercises of the take care power fall within the core executive power. cf. post, at 24 (sotomayor, j., dissenting). i agree with the dissent that the constitution does not justify such an expansive view. ibid. 2 this analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the president’s private conduct because the constitution offers no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity. ante, at 15. sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult but not always. take the president’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. see, e.g., app. 208. in my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. see post, at 27 28 (sotomayor, j., dissenting). the constitution vests power to appoint presidential electors in the states. art. ii, §1, cl. 2; see also chiafalo v. washington, 591 u. s. 578, 588 589 (2020). and while congress has a limited role in that process, see art. ii, §1, cls. 3 4, the president has none. in short, a president has no legal authority and thus no official capacity to influence how the states appoint their electors. i see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct. 3 the court has sometimes applied an avoidance canon when inter  preting a statute that would interfere with the president’s prerogatives. see, e.g., franklin v. massachusetts, 505 u. s. 788, 800 801 (1992); public citizen v. dept. of justice, 491 u. s. 440, 465 467 (1989); see also sale v. haitian centers council, inc., 509 u. s. 155, 188 (1993). the office of legal counsel has advocated for a clear statement rule if applying a statute would “raise serious constitutional questions relating to the president’s constitutional authority.” see application of 28 u. s. c. §458 to presidential appointments of federal judges, 19 op. olc 350, 350 357 (1995). in my view, neither canon applies in this circumstance. courts should instead determine the statute’s ordinary meaning and, if it covers the alleged official acts, assess whether prosecution would intrude on the president’s constitutional authority. see public citizen, 491 u. s., at 481 482 (kennedy, j., concurring in judgment) (declining to apply the avoidance canon and concluding that the federal advisory committee act is unconstitutional as applied). supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 23 939 _________________ donald j. trump, petitioner v. united states justice sotomayor, with whom justice kagan and justice jackson join, dissenting. today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. it makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law. relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the president, ante, at 3, 13, the court gives former president trump all the immunity he asked for and more. because our constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, i dissent. the indictment paints a stark portrait of a president desperate to stay in power. in the weeks leading up to january 6, 2021, then  president trump allegedly “spread lies that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” app. 181, indictment ¶2, despite being “notified repeatedly” by his closest advisers “that his claims were untrue,” id., at 188, ¶11. when dozens of courts swiftly rejected these claims, trump allegedly “pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors” in his favor. id., at 185 186, ¶10(a). it is alleged that he went so far as to threaten one state election official with criminal prosecution if the official did not “ ‘find’ 11,780 votes” trump needed to change the election result in that state. id., at 202, ¶31(f ). when state officials repeatedly declined to act outside their legal authority and alter their state election processes, trump and his co conspirators purportedly developed a plan to disrupt and displace the legitimate election certification process by organizing fraudulent slates of electors. see id., at 208 209, ¶¶53 54. as the date of the certification proceeding neared, trump allegedly also sought to “use the power and authority of the justice department” to bolster his knowingly false claims of election fraud by initiating “sham election crime investigations” and sending official letters “falsely claim[ing] that the justice department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome” while “falsely present[ing] the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors.” id., at 186 187, ¶10(c). when the department refused to do as he asked, trump turned to the vice president. initially, he sought to persuade the vice president “to use his ceremonial role at the january 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” id., at 187, ¶10(d). when persuasion failed, he purportedly “attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in washington, d. c., to pressure the vice president to fraudulently alter the election results.” id., at 221, ¶86. speaking to that crowd on january 6, trump “falsely claimed that, based on fraud, the vice president could alter the outcome of the election results.” id., at 229, ¶104(a). when this crowd then “violently attacked the capitol and halted the proceeding,” id., at 188, ¶10(e), trump allegedly delayed in taking any step to rein in the chaos he had unleashed. instead, in a last desperate ploy to hold onto power, he allegedly “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the capitol” by pressuring lawmakers to delay the certification of the election and ultimately declare him the winner. id., at 233, ¶119. that is the backdrop against which this case comes to the court. the court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the nation’s history: whether a former president enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. the majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the president above the law. the majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate presidents from criminal liability. first, the majority creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” ante, at 6. this holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. in any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” ante, at 14. whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. that is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the president is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. see ante, at 30 32. that holding, which will prevent the government from using a president’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. to start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the president’s role. see part iii, infra. moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. see part iv, infra. next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. see part v, infra. furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. see part vi, infra. finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy. see part vii, infra. the main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a president’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is “at least . . . presumptive,” and quite possibly “absolute.” ante, at 14. whenever the president wields the enormous power of his office, the majority says, the criminal law (at least presumptively) cannot touch him. this official acts immunity has “no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.” dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization, 597 u. s. 215, 280 (2022). indeed, those “standard grounds for constitutional decisionmaking,” id., at 279, all point in the opposite direction. no matter how you look at it, the majority’s official acts immunity is utterly indefensible. the majority calls for a “careful assessment of the scope of presidential power under the constitution.” ante, at 5. for the majority, that “careful assessment” does not involve the constitution’s text. i would start there. the constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents. of course, “the silence of the constitution on this score is not dispositive.” united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683, 706, n. 16 (1974). insofar as the majority rails against the notion that a “ ‘specific textual basis’ ” is required, ante, at 37 (quoting nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731, 750, n. 31 (1982)), it is attacking an argument that has not been made here. the omission in the text of the constitution is worth noting, however, for at least three reasons. first, the framers clearly knew how to provide for immunity from prosecution. they did provide a narrow immunity for legislators in the speech or debate clause. see art. i, §6, cl. 1 (“senators and representatives . . . shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place”). they did not extend the same or similar immunity to presidents. second, “some state constitutions at the time of the framing specifically provided ‘express criminal immunities’ to sitting governors.” brief for scholars of constitutional law as amici curiae 4 (quoting s. prakash, prosecuting and punishing our presidents, 100 tex. l. rev. 55, 69 (2021)). the framers chose not to include similar language in the constitution to immunize the president. if the framers “had wanted to create some constitutional privilege to shield the president . . . from criminal indictment,” they could have done so. memorandum from r. rotunda to k. starr re: indictability of the president 18 (may 13, 1998). they did not. third, insofar as the constitution does speak to this question, it actually contemplates some form of criminal liability for former presidents. the majority correctly rejects trump’s argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he has been impeached by the house and convicted by the senate for the same conduct. see ante, at 32  34; part iv c, infra. the majority ignores, however, that the impeachment judgment clause cuts against its own position. that clause presumes the availability of criminal process as a backstop by establishing that an official impeached and convicted by the senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” art. i, §3, cl. 7 (emphasis added). that clause clearly contemplates that a former president may be subject to criminal prosecution for the same conduct that resulted (or could have resulted) in an impeachment judgment including conduct such as “bribery,” art. ii, §4, which implicates official acts almost by definition.1 aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this court has “recognized presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’ ” ante, at 10 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 749). that is true, as far as it goes. nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. the historical evidence that exists on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution cuts decisively against it. for instance, alexander hamilton wrote that former presidents would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” the federalist no. 69, p. 452 (j. harv. lib. ed. 2009). for hamilton, that was an important distinction between “the king of great britain,” who was “sacred and inviolable,” and the “president of the united states,” who “would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace.” id., at 458. in contrast to the king, the president should be subject to “personal responsibility” for his actions, “stand[ing] upon no better ground than a governor of new york, and upon worse ground than the governors of maryland and delaware,” whose state constitutions gave them some immunity. id., at 452. at the constitutional convention, james madison, who was aware that some state constitutions provided governors immunity, proposed that the convention “conside[r ] what privileges ought to be allowed to the executive.” 2 records of the federal convention of 1787, p. 503 (m. farrand ed. 1911). there is no record of any such discussion. ibid. delegate charles pinckney later explained that “[t]he convention which formed the constitution well knew” that “no subject had been more abused than privilege,” and so it “determined to . . . limi[t] privilege to what was necessary, and no more.” 3 id., at 385. “no privilege . . . was intended for [the] executive.” ibid.2 other commentators around the time of the founding observed that federal officials had no immunity from prosecution, drawing no exception for the president. james wilson recognized that federal officers who use their official powers to commit crimes “may be tried by their country; and if their criminality is established, the law will punish. a grand jury may present, a petty jury may convict, and the judges will pronounce the punishment.” 2 debates on the constitution 177 (j. elliot ed. 1836). a few decades later, justice story evinced the same understanding. he explained that, when a federal official commits a crime in office, “it is indispensable, that provision should be made, that the common tribunals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction of the offence, for the purpose of inflicting, the common punishment applicable to unofficial offenders.” 2 commentaries on the constitution of the united states §780, pp. 250 251 (1833). without a criminal trial, he explained, “the grossest official offenders might escape without any substantial punishment, even for crimes, which would subject their fellow citizens to capital punishment.” id., at 251. this historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. the majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. with nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash. see ante, at 38 39. it claims that the court previously has described the “relevant historical evidence on the question of presidential immunity” as “ ‘fragmentary’ ” and not worthy of consideration. ante, at 38 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 31). yet the court has described only the evidence regarding “the president’s immunity from damages liability” as “fragmentary.” fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 751 752, n. 31 (emphasis added). moreover, far from dismissing that evidence as irrelevant, the fitzgerald court was careful to note that “[t]he best historical evidence clearly support[ed]” the immunity from damages liability that it recognized, and it relied in part on that historical evidence to overcome the lack of any textual basis for its immunity. id., at 152, n. 31. the majority ignores this reliance. it seems history matters to this court only when it is convenient. see, e.g., new york state rifle & pistol assn., inc. v. bruen, 597 u. s. 1 (2022); dobbs, 597 u. s. 215. our country’s history also points to an established understanding, shared by both presidents and the justice department, that former presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts. cf. chiafalo v. washington, 591 u. s. 578, 592 593 (2020) (“ ‘long settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions’ ” (quoting the pocket veto case, 279 u. s. 655, 689 (1929))). consider watergate, for example. after the watergate tapes revealed president nixon’s misuse of official power to obstruct the federal bureau of investigation’s investigation of the watergate burglary, president ford pardoned nixon. both ford’s pardon and nixon’s acceptance of the pardon necessarily “rested on the understanding that the former president faced potential criminal liability.” brief for united states 15; see also public papers of the presidents, gerald r. ford, vol. 1, sept. 8, 1974, p. 103 (1975) (granting former president nixon a “full, free, and absolute pardon . . . for all offenses against the united states which he . . . has committed or may have committed or taken part in during” his presidency); r. nixon, statement by former president richard nixon to p. buchen, counsel to president ford, p. 1 (sept. 8, 1974) (accepting “full and absolute pardon for any charges which might be brought against me for actions taken during the time i was president of the united states”). subsequent special counsel and independent counsel investigations have also operated on the assumption that the government can criminally prosecute former presidents for their official acts, where they violate the criminal law. see, e.g., 1 l. walsh, final report of the independent counsel for iran/contra matters: investigations and prosecutions 445 (1993) (“[b]ecause a president, and certainly a past president, is subject to prosecution . . . the conduct of pres ident reagan in the iran/contra matter was reviewed by independent counsel against the applicable statutes. it was concluded that [his] conduct fell well short of criminality which could be successfully prosecuted”). indeed, trump’s own lawyers during his second impeachment trial assured senators that declining to impeach trump for his conduct related to january 6 would not leave him “in any way above the law.” 2 proceedings of the u. s. senate in the impeachment trial of donald john trump, s. doc. 117 2, p. 144 (2021). they insisted that a former president “is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.” ibid.; see also 1 id., s. doc. 117 3, at 339 (trump’s impeachment counsel stating that “no former officeholder is immune” from the judicial process “for investigation, prosecution, and punishment”); id., at 322 323 (trump’s impeachment counsel stating: “if my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that president trump committed a criminal offense . . . [a]fter he is out of office, you go and arrest him”). now that trump is facing criminal charges for those acts, though, the tune has changed. being treated “like any other citizen” no longer seems so appealing. in sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of presidential immunity that was never recognized by the founders, any sitting president, the executive branch, or even president trump’s lawyers, until now. settled understandings of the constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them. setting aside this evidence, the majority announces that former presidents are “absolute[ly],” or “at least . . . presumptive[ly],” immune from criminal prosecution for all of their official acts. ante, at 14 (emphasis omitted). the majority purports to keep us in suspense as to whether this immunity is absolute or presumptive, but it quickly gives up the game. it explains that, “[a]t a minimum, the president must . . . be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ ” ibid. (emphasis added). no dangers, none at all. it is hard to imagine a criminal prosecution for a president’s official acts that would pose no dangers of intrusion on presidential authority in the majority’s eyes. nor should that be the standard. surely some intrusions on the executive may be “justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of congress.” nixon v. administrator of general services, 433 u. s. 425, 443 (1977). other intrusions may be justified by the “primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions.” united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683, 707 (1974). according to the majority, however, any incursion on executive power is too much. when presumptive immunity is this conclusive, the majority’s indecision as to “whether [official acts] immunity must be absolute” or whether, instead, “presumptive immunity is sufficient,” ante, at 6, hardly matters. maybe some future opinion of this court will decide that presumptive immunity is “sufficient,” ibid., and replace the majority’s ironclad presumption with one that makes the difference between presumptive and absolute immunity meaningful. today’s court, however, has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the president is above the law for all of his official acts. quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former president can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” ante, at 15. of course he can. no one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former president for unofficial (other wise known as private) acts. even trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible to square with clinton v. jones, 520 u. s. 681 (1997). see ante, at 15. this unremarkable proposition is no real limit on today’s decision. it does not hide the majority’s embrace of the most far reaching view of presidential immunity on offer. in fact, the majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. it says that whenever the president acts in a way that is “ ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’ ” he is taking official action. ante, at 17 (quoting blassingame v. trump, 87 f. 4th 1, 13 (cadc 2023)). it then goes a step further: “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives.” ante, at 18. it is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small. ultimately, the majority pays lip service to the idea that “[t]he president, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them,” ante, at 13 14, but it then proceeds to place former presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse of official power. so how does the majority get to its rule? with text, history, and established understanding all weighing against it, the majority claims just one arrow in its quiver: the balancing test in nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731 (1983). yet even that test cuts against it. the majority concludes that official acts immunity “is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch,” ante, at 14, by rejecting that branch’s own protestations that such immunity is not at all required and would in fact be harmful, see brief for united states 18 24, 29 30. in doing so, it decontextualizes fitzgerald’s language, ignores important qualifications, and reaches a result that the fitzgerald court never would have countenanced. in fitzgerald, plaintiff a. ernest fitzgerald sued then former president nixon for money damages. he claimed that, while in office, nixon had been involved in unlawfully firing him from his government job. see 457 u. s., at 733 741. the question for the court was whether a former president had immunity from such a civil suit. the court explained that it was “settled law that the separation of  powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the president of the united states.” id., at 753 754. to determine whether a particular type of suit against a president (or former president) could be heard, a court “must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.” id., at 754. the court explained that, “[w]hen judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests as when the court acts, not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted.” ibid. (citations omitted). on the facts before it, the court concluded that a “merely private suit for damages based on a president’s official acts” did not serve those interests. ibid. the court reasoned that the “visibility of [the president’s] office and the effect of his actions on countless people” made him an easy target for civil suits that “frequently could distract [him] from his public duties.” id., at 753. the public interest in such private civil suits, the court concluded, was comparatively weak. see id., at 754, n. 37 (“[t]here is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions”). therefore, the court held that a former president was immune from such suits. ibid. in the context of a federal criminal prosecution of a former president, however, the danger to the functioning of the executive branch is much reduced. further, as every member of the fitzgerald court acknowledged, see part iv b 2, infra, the public interest in a criminal prosecution is far weightier. applying the fitzgerald balancing here should yield the opposite result. instead, the majority elides any difference between civil and criminal immunity, granting trump the same immunity from criminal prosecution that nixon enjoyed from an unlawful termination suit. that is plainly wrong. the majority relies almost entirely on its view of the danger of intrusion on the executive branch, to the exclusion of the other side of the balancing test. its analysis rests on a questionable conception of the president as incapable of navigating the difficult decisions his job requires while staying within the bounds of the law. it also ignores the fact that he receives robust legal advice on the lawfulness of his actions. the majority says that the danger “of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch” posed by criminally prosecuting a former president for official conduct “is akin to, indeed greater than, what led us to recognize absolute presidential immunity from civil damages liability that the president would be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent executive.” ante, at 13 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 745). it is of course important that the president be able to “ ‘ “deal fearlessly and impartially with” the duties of his office.’ ” ante, at 10 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752). if every action the president takes exposes him personally to vexatious private litigation, the possibility of hamstringing presidential decisionmaking is very real. yet there are many facets of criminal liability, which the majority discounts, that make it less likely to chill presidential action than the threat of civil litigation. first, in terms of probability, the threat of criminal liability is much smaller. in fitzgerald, the threat of vexatious civil litigation loomed large. the court observed that, given the “visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages.” id., at 753. although “ ‘the effect of [the president’s] actions on countless people’ could result in untold numbers of private plaintiffs suing for damages based on any number of presidential acts” in the civil context, the risk in the criminal context is “only that a former president may face one federal prosecution, in one jurisdiction, for each criminal offense allegedly committed while in office.” 2023 wl 8359833, *9 (dc, dec. 1, 2023) (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 753). the majority’s bare assertion that the burden of exposure to federal criminal prosecution is more limiting to a president than the burden of exposure to civil suits does not make it true, and it is not persuasive. second, federal criminal prosecutions require “robust procedural safeguards” not found in civil suits. 2023 wl 8359833, *10. the criminal justice system has layers of protections that “filter out insubstantial legal claims,” whereas civil litigation lacks “analogous checks.” cheney v. united states dist. court for d. c., 542 u. s. 367, 386 (2004). to start, justice department policy requires scrupulous and impartial prosecution, founded on both the facts and the law. see generally dept. of justice, justice manual §9 27.000 (principles of federal prosecution) (june 2023). the grand jury provides an additional check on felony prosecutions, acting as a “buffer or referee between the government and the people,” to ensure that the charges are well founded. united states v. williams, 504 u. s. 36, 47 (1992); see also harlow v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 800, 826, n. 6 (1982) (burger, c. j., dissenting) (“[a] criminal prosecution cannot be commenced absent careful consideration by a grand jury at the request of a prosecutor; the same check is not present with respect to the commencement of civil suits in which advocates are subject to no realistic accountability”). if the prosecution makes it past the grand jury, then the former president still has all the protections our system provides to criminal defendants. if the former president has an argument that a particular statute is unconstitutional as applied to him, then he can move to dismiss the charges on that ground. indeed, a former president is likely to have legal arguments that would be unavailable to the average criminal defendant. for example, he may be able to rely on a public authority exception from particular criminal laws,3 or an advice of the attorney general defense, see tr. of oral arg. 107 108.4 if the case nonetheless makes it to trial, the government will bear the burden of proving every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of the former president’s fellow citizens. see united states v. gaudin, 515 u. s. 506, 510 (1995). if the government manages to overcome even that significant hurdle, then the former president can appeal his conviction, and the appellate review of his claims will be “ ‘particularly meticulous.’ ” trump v. vance, 591 u. s. 786, 809 (2020) (quoting nixon, 418 u. s., at 702). he can ultimately seek this court’s review, and if past practice (including in this case) is any indication, he will receive it. in light of these considerable protections, the majority’s fear that “ ‘bare allegations of malice,’ ” ante, at 18 (alteration omitted), would expose former presidents to trial and conviction is unfounded. bare allegations of malice would not make it out of the starting gate. although a private civil action may be brought based on little more than “ ‘intense feelings,’ ” ante, at 11 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752), a federal criminal prosecution is made of firmer stuff. certainly there has been, on occasion, great feelings of animosity between incoming and outgoing presidents over the course of our country’s history. yet it took allegations as grave as those at the center of this case to have the first federal criminal prosecution of a former president. that restraint is telling. third, because of longstanding interpretations by the executive branch, every sitting president has so far believed himself under the threat of criminal liability after his term in office and nevertheless boldly fulfilled the duties of his office. the majority insists that the threat of criminal sanctions is “more likely to distort presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.” ante, at 13. if that is right, then that distortion has been shaping presidential decisionmaking since the earliest days of the republic. although it makes sense to avoid “diversion of the president’s attention during the decisionmaking process” with “needless worry,” clinton, 520 u. s., at 694, n. 19, one wonders why requiring some small amount of his attention (or his legal advisers’ attention) to go towards complying with federal criminal law is such a great burden. if the president follows the law that he must “take care” to execute, art. ii, §3, he has not been rendered “ ‘unduly cautious,’ ” ante, at 10 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 752, n. 32). some amount of caution is necessary, after all. it is a far greater danger if the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law, buoyed by the knowledge of future immunity. i am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our nation loses something valuable when the president is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law. so what exactly is the majority worried about deterring when it expresses great concern for the “deterrent” effect that “the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment” would pose? ante, at 13. it cannot possibly be the deterrence of acts that are truly criminal. nor does it make sense for the majority to wring its hands over the possibility that presidents might stop and think carefully before taking action that borders on criminal. instead, the majority’s main concern could be that presidents will be deterred from taking necessary and lawful action by the fear that their successors might pin them with a baseless criminal prosecution a prosecution that would almost certainly be doomed to fail, if it even made it out of the starting gate. see ante, at 40. the court should not have so little faith in this nation’s presidents. as this court has said before in the context of criminal proceedings, “ ‘[t]he chance that now and then there may be found some timid soul who will take counsel of his fears and give way to their repressive power is too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.’ ” nixon, 418 u. s., at 712, n. 20 (quoting clark v. united states, 289 u. s. 1, 16 (1933)). the concern that countless (and baseless) civil suits would hamper the executive may have been justified in fitzgerald, but a well founded federal criminal prosecution poses no comparable danger to the functioning of the executive branch. at the same time, the public interest in a federal criminal prosecution of a former president is vastly greater than the public interest in a private individual’s civil suit. all nine justices in fitzgerald explicitly recognized that distinction. the five justice majority noted that there was a greater public interest “in criminal prosecutions” than in “actions for civil damages.” 457 u. s., at 754, n. 37. chief justice burger’s concurrence accordingly emphasized that the majority’s immunity was “limited to civil damages claims,” rather than “criminal prosecution.” id., at 759 760. the four dissenting justices agreed that a “contention that the president is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts,” if ever made, would not “be credible.” id., at 780 (white, j., dissenting). at the very least, the fitzgerald court did not expect that its balancing test would lead to the same outcome in the criminal context. the public’s interest in prosecution is transparent: a federal prosecutor herself acts on behalf of the united states. even the majority acknowledges that the “[f]ederal criminal laws seek to redress ‘a wrong to the public’ as a whole, not just ‘a wrong to the individual,’ ” ante, at 13 (quoting huntington v. attrill, 146 u. s. 657, 668 (1892)), such that there is “a compelling ‘public interest in fair and effective law enforcement,’ ” ante, at 13 (quoting vance, 591 u. s., at 808). indeed, “our historic commitment to the rule of law” is “nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that . . . ‘guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’ ” nixon, 418 u. s., at 708 709 (quoting berger v. united states, 295 u. s. 78, 88 (1935)). the public interest in criminal prosecution is particularly strong with regard to officials who are granted some degree of civil immunity because of their duties. it is in those cases where the public can see that officials exercising power under public trust remain on equal footing with their fellow citizens under the criminal law. see, e.g., o’shea v. littleton, 414 u. s. 488, 503 (1974) (“[w]e have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights”); dennis v. sparks, 449 u. s. 24, 31 (1980) (“[j]udicial immunity was not designed to insulate the judiciary from all aspects of public accountability. judges are immune from §1983 damages actions, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens”); imbler v. pachtman, 424 u. s. 409, 428 429 (1976) (“we emphasize that the [civil] immunity of prosecutors . . . does not leave the public powerless to deter misconduct or to punish that which occurs. this court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. even judges, cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally”). the public interest in the federal criminal prosecution of a former president alleged to have used the powers of his office to commit crimes may be greater still. “[t]he president . . . represent[s] all the voters in the nation,” and his powers are given by the people under our constitution. anderson v. celebrezze, 460 u. s. 780, 795 (1983). when presidents use the powers of their office for personal gain or as part of a criminal scheme, every person in the country has an interest in that criminal prosecution. the majority overlooks that paramount interest entirely. finally, the question of federal criminal immunity for a former president “involves a countervailing article ii consideration absent in fitzgerald”: recognizing such an im munity “would frustrate the executive branch’s enforcement of the criminal law.” brief for united states 19. the president is, of course, entrusted with “ ‘supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.’ ” ante at 10 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 750). one of the most important is “enforcement of federal law,” as “it is the president who is charged constitutionally to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ ” id., at 750 (quoting art. ii, §3). the majority seems to think that allowing former presidents to escape accountability for breaking the law while disabling the current executive from prosecuting such violations somehow respects the independence of the executive. it does not. rather, it diminishes that independence, exalting occupants of the office over the office itself. there is a twisted irony in saying, as the majority does, that the person charged with “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed” can break them with impunity. in the case before us, the public interest and countervailing article ii interest are particularly stark. the public interest in this criminal prosecution implicates both “[t]he executive branch’s interest in upholding presidential elections and vesting power in a new president under the constitution” as well as “the voters’ interest in democratically selecting their president.” 91 f. 4th 1173, 1195 (cadc 2024) (per curiam). it also, of course, implicates congress’s own interest in regulating conduct through the criminal law. cf. fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 749, n. 27 (noting that the case did not involve “affirmative action by congress”). yet the majority believes that a president’s anxiety over prosecution overrides the public’s interest in accountability and negates the interests of the other branches in carrying out their constitutionally assigned functions. it is, in fact, the majority’s position that “boil[s] down to ignoring the constitution’s separation of powers.” ante, at 40. finally, in an attempt to put some distance between its official acts immunity and trump’s requested immunity, the majority insists that “trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one [the majority has] recognized.” ante, at 32. if anything, the opposite is true. the only part of trump’s immunity argument that the majority rejects is the idea that “the impeachment judgment clause requires that impeachment and senate conviction precede a president’s criminal prosecution.” ibid. that argument is obviously wrong. see ante, at 32 34. rejecting it, however, does not make the majority’s immunity narrower than trump’s. inherent in trump’s impeachment judgment clause argument is the idea that a former president who was impeached in the house and convicted in the senate for crimes involving his official acts could then be prosecuted in court for those acts. see brief for petitioner 22 (“the founders thus adopted a carefully balanced approach that permits the criminal prosecution of a former president for his official acts, but only if that president is first impeached by the house and convicted by the senate”). by extinguishing that path to overcoming immunity, however nonsensical it might be, the majority arrives at an official acts immunity even more expansive than the one trump argued for. on the majority’s view (but not trump’s), a former president whose abuse of power was so egregious and so offensive even to members of his own party that he was impeached in the house and convicted in the senate still would be entitled to “at least presumptive” criminal immunity for those acts. separate from its official acts immunity, the majority recognizes absolute immunity for “conduct within [the president’s] exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” ante, at 9. feel free to skip over those pages of the majority’s opinion. with broad official acts immunity covering the field, this ostensibly narrower immunity serves little purpose. in any event, this case simply does not turn on conduct within the president’s “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” and the majority’s attempt to apply a core immunity of its own making expands the concept of “core constitutional powers,” ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds. the idea of a narrow core immunity might have some intuitive appeal, in a case that actually presented the issue. if the president’s power is “conclusive and preclusive” on a given subject, then congress should not be able to “ac[t ] upon the subject.” youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 u. s. 579, 638 (1952) (jackson, j., concurring). in his youngstown concurrence, justice robert jackson posited that the president’s “power of removal in executive agencies” seemed to fall within this narrow category. ibid., n. 4. other decisions of this court indicate that the pardon power also falls in this category, see united states v. klein, 13 wall. 128, 147 (1872) (“to the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon; and it is granted without limit”), as does the power to recognize foreign countries, see zivotofsky v. kerry, 576 u. s. 1, 32 (2015) (holding that the president has “exclusive power . . . to control recognition determinations”). in this case, however, the question whether a former president enjoys a narrow immunity for the “exercise of his core constitutional powers,” ante, at 6, has never been at issue, and for good reason: trump was not criminally indicted for taking actions that the constitution places in the unassailable core of executive power. he was not charged, for example, with illegally wielding the presidency’s pardon power or veto power or appointment power or even removal power. instead, trump was charged with a conspiracy to commit fraud to subvert the presidential election. it is true that the detailed indictment in this case alleges that trump threatened to remove an acting attorney general who would not carry out his scheme. see, e.g., app. 216 217, indictment ¶¶74, 77. yet it is equally clear that the government does not seek to “impose criminal liability on the [p]resident for exercising or talking about exercising the appointment and removal power.” tr. of oral arg. 127. if that were the majority’s concern, it could simply have said that the government cannot charge a president’s threatened use of the removal power as an overt act in the conspiracy. it says much more. the core immunity that the majority creates will insulate a considerably larger sphere of conduct than the narrow core of “conclusive and preclusive” powers that the court previously has recognized. the first indication comes when the majority includes the president’s broad duty to “ ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ ” among the core functions for which a former president supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. ante, at 20 (quoting art. ii, §3). that expansive view of core power will effectively insulate all sorts of noncore conduct from criminal prosecution. were there any question, consider how the majority applies its newly minted core immunity to the allegations in this case. it concludes that “trump is . . . absolutely immune from prosecution for” any “conduct involving his discussions with justice department officials.” ante, at 21. that conception of core immunity expands the “conclusive and preclusive” category beyond recognition, foreclosing the possibility of prosecution for broad swaths of conduct. under that view of core powers, even fabricating evidence and insisting the department use it in a criminal case could be covered. the majority’s conception of “core” immunity sweeps far more broadly than its logic, borrowed from youngstown, should allow. the majority tries to assuage any concerns about its made up core immunity by suggesting that the government agrees with it. see ante, at 34. that suggestion will surprise the government. to say, as the government did, that a “small core of exclusive official acts” such as “the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, [and] the power to make appointments” cannot be regulated by congress, see tr. of oral arg. 85 87, does not suggest that the government agrees with immunizing any and all conduct conceivably related to the majority’s broad array of supposedly “core” powers. the government in fact advised this court to “leav[e] potentially more difficult questions” about the scope of any immunity “that might arise on different facts for decision if they are ever presented.” brief for united states 45. that would have made sense. the indictment here does not pose any threat of impermissibly criminalizing acts within the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. perhaps for this reason, even trump discouraged consideration of “a narrower scope of immunity,” claiming that such an immunity “would be nearly impossible to fashion, and would certainly involve impractical line drawing problems in every application.” brief for petitioner 43 44. when forced to wade into thorny separation of powers disputes, this court’s usual practice is to “confine the opinion only to the very questions necessary to decision of the case.” dames & moore v. regan, 453 u. s. 654, 661 (1981). there is plenty of peril and little value in crafting a core immunity doctrine that trump did not seek and that rightly has no application to this case. not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. it says that acts for which the president is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. they must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. see ante, at 30 32. even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. if the former president cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. for instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a president’s speech is in his capacity as president (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). imagine a president states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). he then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the president’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. that is a strange result, to say the least.5 the majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. consider the first amendment context. although the first amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.” wisconsin v. mitchell, 508 u. s. 476, 489 (1993). evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions can ensure that evidence concerning official acts is “considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” huddleston v. united states, 485 u. s. 681, 691 692 (1988). the majority has no coherent explanation as to why these protections that are sufficient in every other context would be insufficient here. it simply asserts that it would be “untenable” and would deprive immunity of its “ ‘intended effect.’ ” ante, at 31 (quoting fitzgerald, 457 u. s., at 756). the majority hazards an explanation that the use of official acts evidence will “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the president’s policies and performance while in office.” ante, at 31. that “unique risk,” however, is not a product of introducing official acts evidence. it is simply the risk involved in any suit against a former president, including the private acts prosecutions the majority says it would allow. today’s decision to grant former presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. as troubling as this criminal immunity doctrine is in theory, the majority’s application of the doctrine to the indictment in this case is perhaps even more troubling. in the hands of the majority, this new official acts immunity operates as a one way ratchet. first, the majority declares all of the conduct involving the justice department and the vice president to be official conduct, see ante, at 19 24, yet it refuses to designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private, despite concessions from trump’s counsel.6 trump’s counsel conceded, for example, that the allegation that trump “turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results” “sounds private.” tr. of oral arg. 29. he likewise conceded that the allegation that trump “conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by [trump] that contained false allegations to support a challenge” “sounds private.” ibid.; see also id., at 36 37 (trump’s counsel explaining that it is not “disputed” that such conduct is “unofficial”). again, when asked about allegations that “[t]hree private actors . . . helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and [trump] and a co conspirator attorney directed that effort,” trump’s counsel conceded the alleged conduct was “private.” id., at 29 30. only the majority thinks that organizing fraudulent slates of electors might qualify as an official act of the president, see ante, at 24 28, or at least an act so “interrelated” with other allegedly official acts that it might warrant protection, ante, at 28. if the majority’s sweeping conception of “official acts” has any real limits, the majority is unwilling to reveal them in today’s decision. second, the majority designates certain conduct immune while refusing to recognize anything as prosecutable. it shields large swaths of conduct involving the justice department with immunity, see ante, at 19 21; see also part v, supra, but it does not give an inch in the other direction. the majority admits that the vice president’s responsibility “ ‘presiding over the senate’ ” is “ ‘not an “executive branch” function,’ ” and it further admits that the president “plays no direct constitutional or statutory role” in the counting of electoral votes. ante, at 23 24. yet the majority refuses to conclude that trump lacks immunity for his alleged attempts to “enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the january 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” app. 187, indictment ¶10(d). instead, it worries that a prosecution for this conduct might make it harder for the president to use the vice president “to advance [his] agenda in congress.” ante, at 24. such a prosecution, according to the majority, “may well hinder the president’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.” ibid. whether a prosecution for this conduct warrants immunity should have been an easy question, but the majority turns it into a debatable one. remarkably, the majority goes further and declines to deny immunity even for the allegations that trump organized fraudulent elector slates, pressured states to subvert the legitimate election results, and exploited violence at the capitol to influence the certification proceedings. it is not conceivable that a prosecution for these alleged efforts to overturn a presidential election, whether labeled official or unofficial under the majority’s test, would pose any “ ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch,’ ” ante, at 14, and the majority could have said as much. instead, it perseverates on a threshold question that should be immaterial. looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long term consequences of today’s decision are stark. the court effectively creates a law free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding. this new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the nation. korematsu v. united states, 323 u. s. 214, 246 (1944) (jackson, j., dissenting). the president of the united states is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. when he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. orders the navy’s seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival? immune. organizes a military coup to hold onto power? immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? immune. immune, immune, immune. let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. that is the majority’s message today. even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and i pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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. the majority’s single minded fixation on the president’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. the framers were not so single minded. in the federalist papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the executive designed by the constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” alexander hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” the federalist no. 77, p. 507 (j. harvard library ed. 2009). the answer then was yes, based in part upon the president’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” ibid. the answer after today is no. never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. with fear for our democracy, i dissent. 1 article ii, §4, provides: “the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” 2 to note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this court has recognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to say that pinckney was wrong about what the framers had “intended.” indeed, pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the ratification debates. see, e.g., 4 debates on the constitution 109 (j. elliot ed. 1836) (j. iredell) (“if the president does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself. . . . if he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”). 3 see nardone v. united states, 302 u. s. 379, 384 (1937) (explaining that public officers may be “impliedly excluded from [statutory] language embracing all persons” if reading the statute to include such officers “would work obvious absurdity as, for example, the application of a speed law to a policeman pursuing a criminal or the driver of a fire engine responding to an alarm”); see also memorandum from d. barron, acting assistant atty. gen., office of legal counsel, to e. holder, atty. gen., re: applicability of federal criminal laws and the constitution to contemplated lethal operations against shaykh anwar al aulaqi 12 (july 16, 2010) (interpreting criminal statute prohibiting unlawful killings “to incorporate the public authority justification, which can render lethal action carried out by a government official lawful in some circumstances”). 4 trump did not raise those defenses in this case, and the immunity that the majority has created likely will obviate the need to raise them in future cases. yet those defenses would have protected former presidents from unwarranted criminal prosecutions much more precisely than the blanket immunity the majority creates today. 5 the majority suggests, in a footnote, that a “prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the president performed the official act,” so long as the prosecutor does not “invite the jury to inspect” the act in any way. ante, at 32, n. 3. whatever that suggestion is supposed to accomplish, it does not salvage the majority’s nonsensical evidentiary rule. 6 the majority protests that it is “adher[ing] to time tested practices” by “deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding” to lower courts to sort out the details. ante, at 41. yet it implicitly acknowledges that it reaches far beyond what any lower court considered or any party briefed by designating certain conduct official in the first instance. see ibid. (noting “the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged”). in reaching out to shield some conduct as official while refusing to recognize any conduct as unofficial, the majority engages in judicial activism, not judicial restraint. supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 23 939 _________________ donald j. trump, petitioner v. united states justice jackson, dissenting. justice sotomayor has thoroughly addressed the court’s flawed reasoning and conclusion as a matter of history, tradition, law, and logic. i agree with every word of her powerful dissent. i write separately to explain, as succinctly as i can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for presidents of the united states. i also address what that paradigm shift means for our nation moving forward. to fully appreciate the profound change the majority has wrought, one must first acknowledge what it means to have immunity from criminal prosecution. put simply, immunity is “exemption” from the duties and liabilities imposed by law. black’s law dictionary 898 (11th ed. 2019); see hopkins v. clemson, 221 u. s. 636, 643 (1911) (explaining that immunity is “exemption from legal process”). in its purest form, the concept of immunity boils down to a maxim “ ‘[t]he king can do no wrong’ ” a notion that was firmly “rejected at the birth of [our] republic.” clinton v. jones, 520 u. s. 681, 697, n. 24 (1997) (quoting 1 w. blackstone, commentaries *246 (blackstone)); see united states v. burr, 25 f. cas. 30, 34 (no. 14,692d) (cc va. 1807). to say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a king, he “is not under the coercive power of the law,” which “will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime.” 4 blackstone *33. thus, being immune is not like having a defense under the law. rather, it means that the law does not apply to the immunized person in the first place. conferring immunity therefore “create[s] a privileged class free from liability for wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened.” hopkins, 221 u. s., at 643. it is indisputable that immunity from liability for wrongdoing is the exception rather than the rule in the american criminal justice system. that is entirely unsurprising, for the very idea of immunity stands in tension with foundational principles of our system of government. it is a core tenet of our democracy that the people are the sovereign, and the rule of law is our first and final security. “[f]rom their own experience and their deep reading in history, the founders knew that law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised.” united states v. mine workers, 330 u. s. 258, 308 (1947) (frankfurter, j., concurring in judgment). a corollary to that principle sets the terms for this case: “no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. all the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” united states v. lee, 106 u. s. 196, 220 (1882). we have long lived with the collective understanding that “[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen,” for “[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.” olmstead v. united states, 277 u. s. 438, 485 (1928) (brandeis, j., dissenting). these foundational presuppositions are reflected in a procedural paradigm of rules and accountability that operates in the realm of criminal law what i would call an individual accountability model. the basic contours of that model are familiar, because they manifest in every criminal case. criminal law starts with an act of the legislature, which holds the power “to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.” united states v. wiltberger, 5 wheat. 76, 95 (1820); accord, ohio v. johnson, 467 u. s. 493, 499 (1984). criminal statutes are laws of general applicability that express “the assent of the people’s representatives” that certain conduct is off limits in our society. wooden v. united states, 595 u. s. 360, 391 (2022) (gorsuch, j., concurring in judgment). when the federal government believes that someone has run afoul of a criminal statute and decides to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to pursue punishment for that violation, it persuades a grand jury that there is probable cause to indict. u. s. const., amdt. 5. then, the government marshals evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct and possessed the requisite state of mind. see united states v. bailey, 444 u. s. 394, 402 (1980) (observing that, to hold a person criminally liable, “the concurrence of . . . ‘an evil meaning mind [and] an evil doing hand’ ” must be proved (quoting morissette v. united states, 342 u. s. 246, 251 (1952))). for his part, the defendant “stands accused but is presumed innocent until conviction upon trial or guilty plea.” betterman v. montana, 578 u. s. 437, 441 (2016). notably, criminal defendants have various constitutionally protected rights during the criminal liability process, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, the right to have a jury decide guilt or innocence, the right to the assistance of counsel, and the right to confront the witnesses against him. amdt. 6. the defendant also has at his disposal many means to defend himself against the criminal charge. he can, of course, seek to hold the government to its burden of proof at trial. and even before trial, in a motion to dismiss the indictment, he might make any number of legal arguments; he can assert, for example, that the government’s charging document does not give adequate notice of the charge against him or that the law he has been accused of violating is unconstitutionally vague. see hamling v. united states, 418 u. s. 87, 117 (1974); united states v. davis, 588 u. s. 445, 451 (2019). he might further claim that the law is unconstitutional as applied to his particular conduct. see united states v. o’brien, 391 u. s. 367, 376 (1968). and he might maintain that his conduct, even if proved, does not violate the law at issue. see, e.g., fischer v. united states, 603 u. s. ___, ___ (2024) (slip op., at 2). the defendant may also raise, and attempt to prove, affirmative defenses that “excuse conduct that would otherwise be punishable.” dixon v. united states, 548 u. s. 1, 6 (2006). generally speaking, affirmative defenses are determinations (often adopted by legislation) that certain conduct otherwise punishable by law is justified. this might be the case, for example, when the legislature determines that, under specified circumstances, the societal harm particular conduct causes “is outweighed by the need to avoid an even greater harm.” 1 p. robinson, criminal law defenses §24(a) (1984) (robinson). importantly, a defense is not an immunity, even though a defense can likewise result in a person charged with a crime avoiding liability for his criminal conduct. consistent with our foundational norms, the individual accountability model adheres to the presumption that the law applies to all and that everyone must follow it; yet, the model makes allowances for recognized defenses. one such defense is the special privilege that government officials sometimes invoke when carrying out their official duties.1 all of this is to say that our government has long functioned under an accountability paradigm in which no one is above the law; an accused person is innocent until proven guilty; and criminal defendants may raise defenses, both legal and factual, tailored to their particular circumstances, whether they be government officials or ordinary citizens. for over two centuries, our nation has survived with these principles intact. with that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground. departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a presidential accountability model that creates immunity an exemption from criminal law applicable only to the most powerful official in our government. so, how does this new presidential accountability model work? an initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails. the majority announces only its most basic contours. see ante, at 6 (asserting that “the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office”). instead of no immunity (the individual accountability model) or an unqualified grant of absolute immunity for “all official acts,” brief for petitioner 44 (emphasis added), the majority purports to adopt something of a hybrid.2 it holds that a former president may or may not be immune from criminal prosecution for conduct undertaken while in office, to be determined on a case by case basis. according to the majority, whether a former president is immune depends on how his criminal conduct is classified, as among three possible categories. first, with respect to any criminal conduct relating to a president’s “core constitutional powers” those subjects “within his ‘conclusive and preclusive’ constitutional authority” the president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. see ante, at 6, 8. second, expanding outward from this “core,” regarding all other “acts within the outer perimeter of [the president’s] official responsibility,” the president is entitled to “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution.” ante, at 14. third, if the criminal conduct at issue comprises “unofficial acts, there is no immunity.” ante, at 15.3 applying the majority’s new presidential accountability model thus seems to involve bearing down on the indictment’s allegations and making a series of determinations about the nature of the conduct at issue. from the structure of the paradigm, it appears that the first decision point is whether the alleged criminal conduct involves one of the president’s “core” powers. if so (and apparently regardless of the degree to which the conduct implicates that core power), the president is absolutely immune from criminal liability for engaging in that criminal conduct. if not, then one must proceed to consider whether the conduct qualifies as an “official” act or “unofficial” act of that president. if the crime is an official act, the president is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution and punishment. but even then, immunity still hinges on whether there is any legal or factual basis for concluding that the presumption of immunity has been rebutted. alternatively, if the charged conduct is an unofficial act (a determination that, inci dentally, courts must make without considering the president’s motivations, ante, at 18), the president is not immune.4 the majority’s multilayered, multifaceted threshold parsing of the character of a president’s criminal conduct differs from the individual accountability model in several crucial respects. for one thing, it makes it next to impossible to know ex ante when and under what circumstances a president will be subject to accountability for his criminal acts. for every allegation, courts must run this gauntlet first no matter how well documented or heinous the criminal act might be. thus, even a hypothetical president who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics, see, e.g., tr. of oral arg. 9, or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, id., at 41 43, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new presidential accountability model. that is because whether a president’s conduct will subject him to criminal liability turns on the court’s evaluation of a variety of factors related to the character of that particular act specifically, those characteristics that imbue an act with the status of “official” or “unofficial” conduct (minus motive). in the end, then, under the majority’s new paradigm, whether the president will be exempt from legal liability for murder, assault, theft, fraud, or any other reprehensible and outlawed criminal act will turn on whether he committed that act in his official capacity, such that the answer to the immunity question will always and inevitably be: it depends. under the individual accountability paradigm, the accountability analysis is markedly less convoluted, and leads to a more certain outcome. none of the same complications or consequences arise, because, as i have explained, there are no exemptions from the criminal law for any person, but every defendant can assert whatever legal arguments and defenses might be applicable under governing law. since no one is above the law, everyone can focus on what the law demands and permits, and on what the defendant did or did not do; no one has to worry about characterizing any criminal conduct as official or unofficial in order to assess the applicability of an immunity at the outset. the majority’s new presidential accountability model is also distinct insofar as it accepts as a basic starting premise that generally applicable criminal laws do not apply to everyone in our society. in the majority’s view, while all other citizens of the united states must do their jobs and live their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions, the president cannot be made to do so; he must sometimes be exempt from the law’s dictates depending on the character of his conduct. indeed, the majority holds that the president, unlike anyone else in our country, is comparatively free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official duties. that point bears emphasizing. immunity can issue for presidents under the majority’s model even for unquestionably and intentionally egregious criminal behavior. regardless of the nature or the impact of the president’s criminal conduct, so long as he is committing crimes “pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the constitution,” ante, at 7, or as needed “to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution,” ante, at 14, he is likely to be deemed immune from prosecution.5 ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the president. before accountability can be sought or rendered, the judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the president at all. also, under the new presidential accountability model, the starting presumption is that the criminal law does not apply to presidents, no matter how obviously illegal, harmful, or unacceptable a president’s official behavior might be. regardless of all that, courts must now ensure that a former president is not held accountable for any criminal conduct he engages in while he is on duty, unless his conduct consists primarily (and perhaps solely) of unofficial acts. 3 the structure and function of the two accountability paradigms are not the only differences the models also assign different roles to participants in the criminal justice system, and they ultimately generate different relationships between the presidency and the rule of law. under the individual accountability model, duty bound prosecutorial officers initially exercise their discretion to decide whether to seek punishment for alleged violations of criminal law (a determination that is made based on numerous factors). and even if prosecutors decide to bring a charge, a jury of the criminal defendant’s peers ultimately determines whether that defendant (including a former president) will actually be held to account for having engaged in unlawful conduct, after the court has resolved any legal challenges and has instructed the jury as to the requirements of the law. by contrast, under the majority’s new presidential accountability paradigm, what a prosecutor or jury does may not even matter, since the courts take center stage once charges are brought against a former president, marshaling their resources to conduct a complex and amorphous threshold immunity evaluation. whether a former president will be entirely exempted from the dictates of the law (such that the roles of other participants in the criminal justice process become irrelevant) requires a judicial assessment, in the first instance, of his criminal conduct and the circumstances under which he acted. finally, and most importantly, recall that under the individual accountability model, an indicted former president can raise an affirmative defense just like any other criminal defendant. this means that the president remains answerable to the law, insofar as he must show that he was justified in committing a criminal act while in office under the given circumstances. in other words, while the president might indeed be privileged to commit a crime in the course of his official duties, any such privilege exists only when the people (acting either through their elected representatives or as members of a jury) determine that the former president’s conduct was in fact justified, notwithstanding the general criminal prohibition. under the majority’s immunity regime, by contrast, the president can commit crimes in the course of his job even under circumstances in which no one thinks he has any excuse; the law simply does not apply to him. unlike a defendant who invokes an affirmative defense and relies on a legal determination that there was a good reason for his otherwise unlawful conduct, a former president invoking immunity relies on the premise that he can do whatever he wants, however he wants, so long as he uses his “ ‘official power’ ” in doing so. ante, at 19. in the former paradigm, the president remains subject to law; in the latter, he is above it. justice sotomayor has already warned of the dire consequences that are likely to follow from the majority’s decision in this case. ante, at 29 30 (dissenting opinion). i have thus far endeavored merely to explain what today’s ruling amounts to on a theoretical level: the court’s abandonment of the individual accountability model as applied to presidents, and its introduction of a new presidential accountability model that authorizes the judiciary to exempt presidents from punishment under law, depending on the official or unofficial character of the criminal conduct at issue. here, i will highlight just two observations about the results that follow from this paradigm shift. first, by changing the accountability paradigm in this fashion, the court has unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our government as it relates to the rule of law, aggrandizing power in the judiciary and the executive, to the detriment of congress. second, the majority’s new presidential accountability model undermines the constraints of the law as a deterrent for future presidents who might otherwise abuse their power, to the detriment of us all. consider the structural implications of today’s decision from the standpoint of the separation of powers. until now, congress’s laws, passed by the representatives of the people, bound the people and their elected officials just the same. law, we have explained, “is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” lee, 106 u. s., at 220. with its adoption of a paradigm that sometimes exempts the president from the dictates of the law (when the court says so), this court has effectively snatched from the legislature the authority to bind the president (or not) to congress’s mandates, and it has also thereby substantially augmented the power of both the office of the presidency and itself. as to the former, it should go without saying that the office of the presidency, the apex of the executive branch, is made significantly more powerful when the constraints of the criminal law are lifted with respect to the exercise of a president’s official duties. after today’s ruling, the president must still “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” art. ii, §3; yet, when acting in his official capacity, he has no obligation to follow those same laws himself. but whatever additional power the majority’s new presidential accountability model gives to the presidency, it gives doubly to the court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a president’s conduct. for instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the president is now entitled to absolute immunity a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. ante, at 6 9. however, the majority does not and likely cannot supply any useful or administrable definition of the scope of that “core.” for what it’s worth, the constitution’s text is no help either; article ii does not contain a core powers clause.6 so the actual metes and bounds of the “core” presidential powers are really anyone’s guess. nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. quite the opposite, in fact. while acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult” likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the president’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the constitution and laws of the united states.” ante, at 17. the majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the president’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a president’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ ” ante, at 14 (quoting nixon v. fitzgerald, 457 u. s. 731, 754 (1982)). at most, to distinguish official from unofficial conduct, the majority advises asking whether the former president’s conduct was “ ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’ ” ante, at 17 (quoting blassingame v. trump, 87 f. 4th 1, 13 (cadc 2023)). but that test can be illusory, as is evidenced by the facts alleged in this very case. with respect to the indictment’s allegations concerning petitioner’s attempt to assemble false slates of electors in conjunction with the events of january 6, 2021, for example, the majority admits that the “alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized,” and that “[t]he analysis therefore . . . may prove to be challenging.” ante, at 28 29. with that, at least, i could not agree more. this much is clear: before today, none of these kinds of inquiries was necessary for criminal liability to be fairly assessed with respect to persons accused of having engaged in criminal conduct. and, frankly, none is needed now except as relates to the president under the new paradigm the majority has crafted. perhaps even more troubling, while congress (the branch of our government most accountable to the people) is the entity our constitution tasks with deciding, as a general matter, what conduct is on or off limits, the court has now arrogated that power unto itself when that question pertains to the president. in essence, the court has now imposed its own preclearance requirement on the application of congress’s laws to a former president alleged to have committed crimes while in office. who will be responsible for drawing the crucial “ ‘line between [the president’s] personal and official affairs’ ”? ante, at 29. to ask the question is to know the answer. a majority of this court, applying an indeterminate test, will pick and choose which laws apply to which presidents, by labeling his various allegedly criminal acts as “core,” “official,” or “manifestly or palpably” beyond the president’s authority. ironically, then, while purportedly seeking to transcend politics, see ante, at 41 42, the court today displaces the independent judgments of the political branches about the circumstances under which the criminal law should apply. effectively, the court elbows out of the way both congress and prosecutorial authorities within the executive branch, making itself the indispensable player in all future attempts to hold former presidents accountable to generally applicable criminal laws. “the framers, however, did not make the judiciary the overseer of our government.” youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 u. s. 579, 594 (1952) (frankfurter, j., concurring). to be sure, this court may sometimes “have to intervene in determining where authority lies as between the democratic forces in our scheme of government.” id., at 597. but it has long been understood that “we should be wary and humble” when doing so. ibid. the majority displays no such caution or humility now. instead, the court today transfers from the political branches to itself the power to decide when the president can be held accountable. what is left in its wake is a greatly weakened congress, which must stand idly by as the president disregards its criminal prohibitions and uses the powers of his office to push the envelope, while choosing to follow (or not) existing laws, as he sees fit. we also now have a greatly empowered court, which can opt to allow congress’s policy judgments criminalizing conduct to stand (or not) with respect to a former president, as a matter of its own prerogative. if the structural consequences of today’s paradigm shift mark a step in the wrong direction, then the practical consequences are a five alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self governance and the normal operations of our government. the majority shoos away this possibility. ante, at 37 (accusing the dissents of “strik[ing] a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today”). but justice sotomayor makes this point plain, see ante, at 29 30, and i will not belabor it. here, i will merely observe that, from a theoretical perspective, philosophers have long considered deterrence to be a key justification for adopting and maintaining systems that ensure accountability for criminal conduct.7 for that same reason, some commentators also maintain that decreasing the certainty of accountability for wrongful acts at least arguably reduces incentives to follow the law.8 under the individual accountability model, because everyone is subject to the law, the potential of criminal liability operates as a constraint on the actions and decisions of everyone, including the president. after today, that reality is no more. consequently, our nation has lost a substantial check on presidents who would use their official powers to commit crimes with impunity while in office. so, one might ask, what remains of accountability for presidents under law? with today’s paradigm shift, the majority leaves in place only the chance that this court might someday determine that the criminal conduct in question was an “unofficial” act, or that the government will somehow rebut the presumption of immunity that applies to a president’s official acts, such that criminal consequences might attach. but with the parameters of official and unofficial conduct unknown, i think it highly unlikely that a sitting president would feel constrained by these remote possibilities. all of this leads me to ponder why, exactly, has the majority concluded that an indeterminate “core” versus “official” versus “unofficial” line drawing exercise is the better way to address potential criminal acts of a president? could it be that the majority believes the obviously grave dangers of shifting from the individual accountability model to the presidential accountability model might nevertheless be offset by the great benefits of doing so? cf. j. bentham, a fragment on government and an introduction to the principles of morals and legislation 3 (w. harrison ed. 1948) (arguing that acts can be justified by the maxim that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” (emphasis deleted)). some of the majority’s analysis suggests as much. as far as i can tell, the majority is mostly concerned that, without immunity, presidents might “be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent executive.” ante, at 13. the court’s opinion candidly laments that application of the law to presidents might not be evenhanded, and that, as a result, presidents might be less “ ‘vigorous’ and ‘energetic’ ” as executive officers. ante, at 10; accord, ante, at 39. but that concern ignores (or rejects) the foundational principles upon which the traditional individual accountability paradigm is based. worse still, promoting more vigor from presidents in exercising their official duties and, presumably, less deliberation invites breathtaking risks in terms of harm to the american people that, in my view, far outweigh the benefits. this is not to say that the majority is wrong when it perceives that it can be cumbersome for a president to have to follow the law while carrying out his duty to enforce it. it is certainly true that “[a] scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all embracing, swiftly moving authority.” youngstown, 343 u. s., at 613 (frankfurter, j., concurring). but any american who has studied history knows that “our government was designed to have such restrictions.” ibid. (emphasis added). our constitution’s “separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. the purpose was, not to avoid friction, but . . . to save the people from autocracy.” myers v. united states, 272 u. s. 52, 293 (1926) (brandeis, j., dissenting). having now cast the shadow of doubt over when if ever a former president will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act “manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,” ante, at 17, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike. but the majority also tells us not to worry, because “[l]ike everyone else, the president is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity.” ante, at 40 (emphasis added). this attempted reassurance is cold comfort, even setting aside the fact that the court has neglected to lay out a standard that reliably distinguishes between a president’s official and unofficial conduct. why? because there is still manifest inequity: presidents alone are now free to commit crimes when they are on the job, while all other americans must follow the law in all aspects of their lives, whether personal or professional. the official versus unofficial act distinction also seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a president are the only ones worthy of prosecution. quite to the contrary, it is when the president commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire. so, the fact that, “unlike anyone else, the president is” vested with “sweeping powers and duties,” ibid., actually underscores, rather than undermines, the grim stakes of setting the criminal law to the side when the president flexes those very powers. the vision john adams enshrined in the massachusetts declaration of rights “ ‘a government of laws and not of men’ ” speaks directly to this concept. mine workers, 330 u. s., at 307 (frankfurter, j., concurring in judgment). adams characterized that document as an homage to the rule of law; it reflected both a flat “rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat” and a solemn promise that “[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law.” id., at 308. thanks to the majority, that vision and promise are likely to be fleeting in the future. from this day forward, presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the commander in chief powers, the foreign affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in article ii however they please including in ways that congress has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and liberties of americans. to the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for presidents have been planted. and, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. “if one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. that means first chaos, then tyranny.” id., at 312. likewise, “[i]f the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” olmstead, 277 u. s., at 485 (brandeis, j., dissenting). i worry that, after today’s ruling, our nation will reap what this court has sown. stated simply: the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the united states can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. as we enter this uncharted territory, the people, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional democracy, and thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this court’s decision. for, like our democracy, our constitution is “the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.” cohens v. virginia, 6 wheat. 264, 389 (1821). for my part, i simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law as the rule of law requires. that core principle has long prevented our nation from devolving into despotism. yet the court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future president who has the will to flout congress’s established boundaries. in short, america has traditionally relied on the law to keep its presidents in line. starting today, however, americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to presidential action or reaction. once self regulating, the rule of law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a president have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. so, ultimately, this court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the oval office in the future. the potential for great harm to american institutions and americans themselves is obvious. the majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our court’s ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case by case application of the indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong. but, for all our sakes, i hope that they are right. in the meantime, because the risks (and power) the court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, i dissent. 1 see r. perkins & r. boyce, criminal law 1093 (3d ed. 1982) (“deeds which otherwise would be criminal, such as taking or destroying property, taking hold of a person by force and against his will, placing him in confinement, or even taking his life, are not crimes if done with proper public authority”); see also 2 robinson §141(a) (describing the public authority defense, under which a defendant may escape liability if he “has been specifically authorized to engage in the conduct constituting the offense in order to protect or further a public interest”); brief for united states 29 30, n. 11; ante, at 16, n. 3 (sotomayor, j., dissenting) (citing nardone v. united states, 302 u. s. 379, 384 (1937)). 2 its feigned judicial humility notwithstanding, see ante, at 41, the majority’s holding goes further much further than necessary to resolve this case. petitioner’s argument in both the lower courts and this one was that a former president is categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for “all” acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties. see opening brief for defendant appellant in no. 23 3228 (cadc, dec. 23, 2023), p. 23; 91 f. 4th 1173, 1188 1189, 1195, 1208 (cadc 2024) (per curiam); brief for petitioner 41 47 (arguing for absolute immunity for “all actions within the ‘outer perimeter’ ” of a president’s responsibilities, and imploring the court not to adopt a “ ‘function based’ approach”). thus, it would have been enough for the court simply to reject petitioner’s categorical claim and leave it at that. but the majority sua sponte rephrased the question presented, and it now takes full advantage of this opportunity to devise from whole cloth an entirely new legal framework for judicial evaluation of potential criminal immunity for former presidents. 3 it is important to note that the majority reframes the immunity question presented here as a separation of powers concern that is compelled by article ii as if what is being asked is whether congress can criminalize executive prerogatives. see, e.g., ante, at 6 7; see also ante, at 1 2 (barrett, j., concurring in part). but that is not anywhere close to what is happening in this case. no one maintains that congress has passed a law that specifically criminalizes the president’s use of any power that the constitution vests exclusively in the executive, much less that the judiciary is being conscripted to adjudicate the propriety of such a statute. to the contrary, the indictment here invokes criminal statutes of general applicability that everyone is supposed to follow, both on and off the job. so, the real question is: can the president, too, be held accountable for committing crimes while he is undertaking his official duties? the nature of his authority under article ii (whether conclusive and preclusive, or shared with congress, or otherwise) is entirely beside the point. 4 justice barrett’s version of the presidential accountability paradigm works slightly differently; she would have us ask, first, “whether the relevant criminal statute reaches the president’s official conduct.” ante, at 2. but, again, what is at issue here are statutes of general applicability they only “reach” the president’s conduct to the extent that he chooses to engage in the prohibited behavior. see n. 3, supra. justice barrett’s framing, thus, sidesteps the fact that, when immunity is being considered, what is actually at issue is whether the president is exempt from punishment if he opts to exercise his official duties using means that violate criminal law. 5 to fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the president’s responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” prerogatives: “ ‘[t]he president’s power to remove . . . those who wield executive power on his behalf.’ ” ante, at 8 (quoting seila law llc v. consumer financial protection bureau, 591 u. s. 197, 204 (2020)). while the president may have the authority to decide to remove the attorney general, for example, the question here is whether the president has the option to remove the attorney general by, say, poisoning him to death. put another way, the issue here is not whether the president has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the president exercises that authority. 6 some of the powers the majority designates as “core” powers are, at best, implied from indefinite constitutional language. see, e.g., seila law, 591 u. s., at 268 269 (kagan, j., concurring in judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part) (“nowhere does the text say anything about the president’s power to remove subordinate officials at will”); zivotofsky v. kerry, 576 u. s. 1, 11 (2015) (“[t]he constitution does not use the term ‘recognition,’ either in article ii or elsewhere”); id., at 63 (roberts, c. j., dissenting) (calling the “asserted textual bases” for an exclusive presidential recognition power “tenuous”). 7 see, e.g., plato, laws 274 (b. jowett transl. 2000) (“not that he is punished because he did wrong, for that which is done can never be undone, but in order that in future times, he, and those who see him corrected, may utterly hate injustice, or at any rate abate much of their evil doing”); see also j. bentham, the rationale of punishment 20 (1830) (“general prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification”); a. von hirsch, doing justice: the choice of punishments 44 (1976) (“the threat and imposition of punishment is called for in order to secure compliance not full compliance, but more compliance than there might be were there no legal penalties at all”). 8 see, e.g., m. ryan, taking another look at second look sentencing, 81 brooklyn l. rev. 149, 156, and n. 37 (2015) (“[u]ndermining the . . . certainty of punishment . . . could undermine the deterrence value of punishment”).

joshua barajas joshua barajas erica r. hendry erica r. hendry leave your feedback in a historic decision, the supreme court ruled monday that former presidents have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in office, no matter their “politics, policy, or party,” but stipulated that that protection doesn’t cover everything. read the full supreme court decision on trump and presidential immunity the court’s three liberal justices dissented. monday’s decision “reshapes the institution of the presidency” and could lead to stark, long term consequences for american democracy, justice sonia sotomayor wrote. while the lower court has the job of working out the specific parameters of the high court’s decision, one thing is clear: for trump, the ruling is a victory. he and his legal team have sought to dismiss or delay the four ongoing criminal cases against him. and this latest supreme court ruling makes it hard to see how the federal 2020 election case could go to trial before the next election day. soon after the court’s decision was released, the former president declared in all caps on his social media network, “big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american.” thank you. please check your inbox to confirm. what happens to trump’s federal criminal charges, especially if he is reelected? here are six quick questions about the court’s ruling. the heart of trump v. united states was a legally untested question that has not come before the high court until now: whether a president could be immune from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. the president is not above the law,” chief justice john roberts wrote in the majority opinion. but, roberts added, “the system of separated powers designed by the framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. the president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” the court’s three liberal justices argued that making a president immune from prosecution makes him “a king above the law.” “let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,” justice sonia sotomayor wrote. “because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. that is the majority’s message today.” chief justice roberts laid out three different categories of presidential acts: roberts said some actions, such as those involving the attorney general or department of justice, fall into the first category. they “are readily categorized in light of the nature of the president’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” and therefore fall under absolute immunity. other interactions, roberts wrote, get more complicated. these include trump’s conversations with then vice president mike pence, who was tasked with overseeing the certification of electoral college votes on jan. 6, 2021. “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,” roberts wrote. “the question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances,” he added. roberts acknowledged the broad range of other conduct in trump’s indictment, including false claims of voter fraud, the alleged fake elector scheme, and his actions on jan. 6. the court asked the lower district court to determine whether these actions  which involved state governments, private actors and the public   were taken in an official or unofficial capacity. “determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations,” roberts wrote. “trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the court recognizes,” roberts wrote. trump’s legal team, citing the impeachment judgment clause, had argued that the federal government’s case against him should be dismissed because conviction by the u.s. senate is a “necessary step” before criminal prosecution. trump was impeached by the house of representatives but acquitted in his jan. 6 impeachment trial. but roberts wrote that the clause doesn’t cover what happens if a president is never impeached. nor does it or other historical documents address or “even consider” how immunity from prosecution applies to a former president. at the same time, the justice department “for its part takes a similarly broad view, contending that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. “it is the government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity,” roberts wrote. one of the biggest takeaways with monday’s ruling is that the justices are “something of a mixed bag” on the question of presidential immunity, said steve vladeck, an expert on federal courts and professor at the georgetown university law center. in the court’s ruling, the majority said sometimes yes, sometimes no. another important moment: the court weighed in on whether prosecutors, in trying a former president, can cite official acts   things for which the president could not otherwise be prosecuted   as evidence. the majority said no. “that’s actually a really big deal, even if it’s a little technical, and it’s going to throw a pretty big wrench not just into the prosecution of former president trump, but future efforts to hold presidents liable if they commit crimes while in office,” vladeck said. justice amy coney barrett split from her fellow conservative justices on this point. in a separate concurrence, barrett wrote that “the constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable” and that rules around evidence already exist to handle concerns about prejudicing the jury on a case by case basis. she broadly agreed with the majority that former presidents enjoyed some level of immunity for their official acts while in office. but she wrote that “a president facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment. if that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial.” the supreme court’s decision fell along ideological lines. justices sonia sotomayor, elena kagan and ketanji brown jackson all dissented from the conservative majority. sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the court’s decision to grant former president criminal immunity “reshapes the institution of the presidency.” “it makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law,” she added. sotomayor wrote that the president, under the majority’s reasoning, will now be protected from prosecution for a variety of actions while in office. the justice raised a few examples. “orders the navy’s seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival? immune. organizes a military dissenting coup to hold onto power? immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? immune. immune, immune, immune.” even if these “nightmare scenarios” never pan out, “the damage has been done,” sotomayor wrote. “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.” watch the video in the player above. because the supreme court did not determine which of trump’s actions were unofficial acts, special counsel jack smith is going to have to wait for the lower district court to weigh in, which takes some time, said chris geidner, a longtime supreme court journalist who publishes the law dork newsletter. “you’re going to have briefings, you’re going to have probably hearings, before we even get to a point that jack smith knows what’s allowed to go forward to trial,” he told pbs news’ william brangham on monday. if smith had received clear definitions from the high court, he could make faster determinations about what can stay in the federal indictment, geidner added. the likelihood of this case going to trial before americans go to the polls in november is slim. before monday’s landmark decision, experts criticized the supreme court for slow walking trump’s immunity bid. u.s. district court judge tanya chutkan, who presides over the case involving trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, will set the timing for the trial. she’s previously promised to give trump’s legal team about 90 days to prepare. chutkan rejected trump’s immunity claim in december, ruling that the u.s. presidency “does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass.” “today’s decision tilts even more power toward the office of the presidency, whether the president is a democrat or a republican,” vladeck said. it also tilts power “away from congress, which passes criminal statutes that presumably apply to the president, tilts that power away from courts, which are the ones that are supposedly holding presidents liable when they engage in wrongdoing,” vladeck said. most importantly, vladeck said, it tilts power away from the people, because the only option left for accountability for presidents becomes impeachment, “ a process that is weak enough on its own, and hard to imagine being especially effective in a late second term of a presidency.” pbs news’ kyle midura reported for this story. left: then president donald trump waves to supporters during a jan. 6 rally to contest the certification of the 2020 u.s. presidential election results in washington, d.c. photo by jim bourg/reuters by mark sherman, associated press by associated press by mark sherman, associated press by joshua barajas, hannah grabenstein, molly finnegan, kenichi serino joshua barajas joshua barajas joshua barajas is a senior editor for the pbs newshour's communities initiative. he also the senior editor and manager of newsletters. erica r. hendry erica r. hendry erica r. hendry is the managing editor for digital at pbs newshour. support provided by: learn more thank you. please check your inbox to confirm. politics jun 28 © 1996   2025 newshour productions llc. all rights reserved. pbs is a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. sections about stay connected thank you. please check your inbox to confirm. learn more about friends of the news hour. support for news hour provided by

loadin... the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. professor of law, georgia state university college of law william nelson cromwell professor of politics at princeton university the final section of article ii, which generally describes the executive branch, specifies that the “president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states” shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” two clauses in article i lay out the role of the house of representatives and the senate in impeachments and in trials of impeachment. in practice, impeachments by the house have been rare, and convictions after a trial by the senate even less common. three presidents, one senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office. this sparse history has given congress relatively few opportunities to flesh out the bare bones of the constitutional text. the impeachment clause was included in the constitution in order to create another check against abuses by government officials and to give congress the ability to remove from power an unfit officer who might otherwise be doing damage to the public good. unsurprisingly, most “civil officers of the united states” who have found themselves damaged by scandal have preferred to resign rather than endure an impeachment. the house and senate have refused to act on impeachment charges against individuals who were not then holding a federal office. the senate early on decided that members of congress should be expelled by their individual chambers rather than be subjected to an impeachment trial. presidents have acted quickly to remove problematic members of the executive branch. as a practical matter, judges and presidents have been the primary targets of impeachment inquiries. much of the controversy surrounding the impeachment clause has revolved around the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase that is unique to the impeachment context. the clause seems to rule out the possibility of congress impeaching and removing officials simply for incompetence or general unfitness for office. impeachments are not a remedy for government officials who are simply bad at their jobs. it is a remedy for abuses of public office. but the line between general unfitness and abuse of office can be blurry. the first senate conviction in an impeachment trial was of a federal judge, john pickering, who was charged with issuing rulings that were “contrary to his trust and duty as a judge” and “in violation of the laws of the united states,” as well as appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication” in a manner “disgraceful to his own character as a judge and degrading to the honor of the united states.” the judge’s son filed a petition with the senate explaining the “real situation,” that his father “has been, and now is, insane.” the judge no longer had the mental capacity to commit high crimes. while the senate preferred not to delve into that question in detail, it was uncomfortable voting on a resolution stating that the judge was “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.” the senators simply concluded that he was “guilty as charged,” and voted to remove him from office. the senate was not anxious to say that pickering had committed a crime, but neither was it willing to leave him on the bench. while the pickering case was idiosyncratic and awkward, it raised issues that remain unresolved about the scope of the impeachment power. can a government official be impeached and convicted for innocent mistakes, or must they have bad intentions? is it sufficient to justify an impeachment and conviction if a government official commits acts that are “disgraceful,” contrary to the “trust and duty” of their office, or “degrading to the honor of the united states,” or can impeachment only be justified when an official has committed criminal acts? do “high crimes” include only criminal offenses for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law, or can they include other forms of misconduct? are some violations of the law too trivial to be considered “high crimes” that would justify an impeachment? can private misdeeds justify an impeachment, or must the actions in question be connected to the conduct of the office that an individual holds? while still serving as a member of the house of representatives, gerald ford once said that impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the house considered them to be. the burden is on those who want to bring impeachment charges to persuade a majority of the members of the house of representatives and two thirds of the members of the senate that an act is so serious as to justify removing an individual from office. the impeachment power is a tool that most members of congress are unwilling to use if it can be avoided, but they have also wanted to preserve it as a tool that is flexible enough to be used in any exceptional circumstances that might arise. william nelson cromwell professor of politics at princeton university the impeachment power exists at the far margins of american constitutionalism. the founders sought to create three branches of government, each independent of the others and enmeshed in a system of checks and balances. they thought that if government power collapsed into a single set of officials, civil liberty and political effectiveness would be compromised. each branch of government was armed with its own set of powers and responsibilities and given sufficient tenure and resources to be able to act on its own judgment. but the desire for independence had to be balanced against a concern with accountability. government officials needed to be independent enough to be able to act in the public interest, but not so independent as to be able to exercise unchecked power. when the founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions. but for cases in which abusive behavior could not be tolerated until the next election, they provided for the possibility of impeachment and removal. that power they were only willing to entrust to the most democratic branch of the government, the legislature. if the impeachment power is going to serve its purpose, it needs to be flexible. when drafting the impeachment clause, the delegates in philadelphia rejected the proposal that officials could be removed for “maladministration.” they preferred language that emphasized abuses and crimes; impeachment in cases of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” but what might fall into the category of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was still quite unclear. there are risks associated with either a narrow or broad reading of impeachable offenses. a narrow reading of the clause risks making the impeachment power inflexible and unable to respond to unanticipated bad behavior on the part of government officials. a broad reading of the clause risks creating a partisan weapon that can be used by legislators to undermine the independence of other government officials. if the examples of treason and bribery are taken to be characteristic of the full scope of impeachable offenses, then government officials might only be removable if they commit criminal acts involving their public office. that is an important class of misdeeds, but it seems unlikely that it would capture the full range of behavior that might put the public good in immediate jeopardy. merely “private” offenses like tax evasion, perjury, sexual assault and obstruction of justice have been deemed worthy of impeachment investigations precisely because they call into question that ability of a judge or executive officer to continue to properly perform their duties and maintain the dignity and respect of the office that they hold. even some instances of non criminal misbehavior by a high government official might be regarded as too intolerable to allow them to continue to exercise their public responsibilities. the broader the category of impeachable offenses is understood to be the easier it is for mere political disagreements to become grounds for impeachment investigations. it is all too common for partisans to believe that their political foes are not just wrong but dangerously wrong, not just mistaken but willfully mistaken, not just erroneous but abusive. if the impeachment power is used to settle political scores, then the independence of the separate branches of government will be undermined. if routine impeachments became a tool for overcoming policy disputes and political obstructions, then political power would gradually be centralized in congress, with the judiciary and the executive reduced to being little more than extensions of the legislative will. the constitution was not designed to have presidents and judges sit only at the pleasure of the congress. in practice, three factors have discouraged congress from abusing the impeachment power. first, the house and the senate have built up precedents over time that give some substantive content to the scope of impeachable offenses. the house is more comfortable pursuing an impeachment and the senate more comfortable in convicting in the case of an impeachment if the alleged actions are similar to the kinds of behavior that have led to impeachments and convictions in the past. second, the constitution not only sets a substantive standard for impeachable offenses; it also creates procedural barriers for removing government officers. the house must muster a majority to sustain an impeachment effort, and the house managers must be able to persuade two thirds of the senators to win a conviction. especially in the senate, that hurdle necessitates building a coalition that crosses party lines. a narrowly partisan impeachment effort is unlikely to result in a conviction and removal, and so house leaders have rarely thought impeachments are worth the effort unless members of the minority party are in agreement that impeachable offenses have been committed. third, the members of congress are ultimately accountable to the voters for their actions. if the public is not convinced that an impeachment is justified, legislators are disinclined to risk their own reelection by tilting at windmills. the founders left a powerful weapon in the hands of congress in the form of the impeachment power. like all powers, the impeachment power is subject to misuse and abuse. the ultimate check on how that power is used is public sentiment. the burden is on those who think that an impeachment is appropriate to persuade others that the circumstances warrant taking such drastic measures. exercising the impeachment power requires the ability to reach across the political aisle and forge a political consensus that the danger of leaving an individual in power is too great to be risked. in the absence of that consensus, legislators are forced to rely on the more mundane tools that they have at their disposal to check abuses of power and advance the public welfare. professor of law, georgia state university college of law what sort of conduct is so harmful that congress is justified in impeaching and removing an officer who commits it? the constitution’s answer is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” treason and bribery are clear enough, but the concluding phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” is anything but clear. it is open ended for the reason many constitutional provisions are vague and open ended. in the words of the great chief justice john marshall, the “constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” in the context of impeachment, this means that the constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. if it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. instead, the constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the house of representatives and the senate. in this light, then representative gerald ford’s claim that the house could impeach an officer on any ground it wishes may seem plausible. but the ford position goes too far. it ignores the constitution’s text and structure. if the constitution means to allow impeachment on any ground whatsoever, then why would the constitution bother to set forth that impeachment and removal may be based only on conduct that rises to the level of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”? in fact, the framers debated this phrase and settled on this formulation precisely to prohibit congress from impeaching officers for any reason at all. the framers were determined to limit the grounds on which an officer could be impeached in order to safeguard another constitutional principle: the separation of powers. it is clear that, in our constitutional system of government, the executive branch (the president, the cabinet, and other officers subordinate to the president) and the judiciary (the supreme court and the lower federal courts) are to be independent from the legislature (the house of representatives and the senate). the framers recognized the potential for impeachment to undermine this principle. it is a well established legal principle that the power to remove is the power to control. the president, for example, can control the agencies of the executive branch principally because the president can remove the heads of the agencies (such as cabinet secretaries) for any reason at all, including for not following an order from the president. they are said to serve at will because the president can remove them at will. if congress can impeach and remove the president or supreme court justices for any reason at all, then these officers serve at the will of congress and are subject to its control. an early draft of the constitution gave congress the power to impeach and remove officers for “maladministration.” james madison objected to this because the term was so vague that it would allow impeachment for any reason at all. as he put it, “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the senate.” the term “maladministration" was then deleted from the draft and replaced by the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” this shows that the framers meant for the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. if the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow congress to influence and control the president and the courts. there is a second constitutional principle at stake in defining the scope of the impeachment power: our commitment to democracy. allowing congress to remove presidents, and executive officers who serve under them, has the effect of thwarting the will of the people. after all, the president is elected to serve a four year term. how, in a democracy, can we justify giving congress (or anyone other than the people, for that matter) the power to overrule a presidential election? this can only be justified on the ground that the president has committed acts so dangerous to the public that the president may not be allowed to remain in office until the next election. imagine, for example, if it were discovered that a president was secretly a spy and agent for a foreign power. in that sort of case all would agree that the danger to our constitutional system of government, indeed to our nationhood, is such that it is impractical to wait for a presidential election to remove the president. the framers agreed on this point too. but this emphasizes just how important it is to limit the power to truly egregious conduct and serious harms to the public. otherwise, this narrow and speculative potential could undermine our basic commitment to democracy. the constitutional commitment to democracy could explain an interesting feature of the history of impeachments in the united states: no president or executive officer has been removed from office through impeachment (though the threat of impeachment and conviction hastened the resignation of secretary of war william belknap in 1876 on charges of financial corruption). each of the eight officers to be impeached, convicted, and removed has been a judge. federal judges are appointed, not elected, and enjoy life tenure that is, unlike a president who serves a four year term, federal judges serve until they die or decide to retire. to remove a federal judge, then, does not raise the same sort of concerns about overruling an election that removing an executive branch officer does. three presidents andrew johnson, bill clinton and donald trump have been impeached by the house of representatives. none of them was convicted by the senate. andrew johnson was impeached in 1868, the last year of his term. one important factor in his acquittal was the reluctance of several senators to vote for impeachment with a presidential election so close at hand. best, they thought, to let the voters have their say. similarly, when the senate met to try and deliberate on the impeachment of president clinton, many argued that removing him from office would repudiate the judgment of the people who had reelected him. impeachment is a powerful tool. it must be closely limited to situations of conduct that inflicts serious harm on the public and that seriously compromises the officer’s ability to function in office. otherwise, it could undermine our constitutional system of separation of powers and thwart our fundamental commitment to democracy. the framers wisely recognized these dangers and added the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” precisely to limit the scope of the impeachment power to these most egregious circumstances and to prohibit its use beyond them. © 2025 national constitution center. all rights reserved. modal body text goes here.

article   by saikrishna bangalore prakash volume 100   issue 1 can a president be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and punished? although some believe that these possibilities are unconstitutional, even absurd, i demur. for a host of reasons, the presidency lacks immunities from criminal process and punishment. first, some constitutions from the founding era included express executive immunities, not relying upon shadowy inferences. this practice sheds light on how to best read our constitution. second, though james madison sought the creation of express presidential privileges at the philadelphia convention, he failed. third, during the ratification fight, many denied that the president would have special immunities of any sort, with some noting that presidents had fewer privileges than members of congress. fourth, a sitting president was arrested and essentially admitted his guilt, never asserting that the constitution shielded him from arrest, prosecution, or punishment. fifth, the constitution supplies a constitutional solution when circumstances, including arrest or incarceration, incapacitate a sitting president. the “acting president” the vice president takes over, ensuring continuity and energy in the executive. lastly, the constitution authorizes congress to supply a statutory immunity. by ordinary law, congress can grant immunities that the constitution itself never accords. further, it can curb, expand, or eliminate its grant as circumstances warrant. because congress can solve any difficulties that might arise from the arrest, prosecution, and punishment of our presidents, there is little need to infer or imagine a constitutional solution. [s]uppose the president commits murder in [the] streets. [i]mpeach him[?] but you can only remove him from office on impeachment. why when he is no longer president, you can indict him. [b]ut in the mean while he runs away. [b]ut i will put another case. [s]uppose he continues his murders daily, and neither houses are sitting to impeach him. oh! the people would rise and restrain him. [v]ery well you will allow the mob to do what the legal justice must abstain from.  senator william maclay, arguing in 1789 that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal process and punishment.[1] every generation or so, the nation confronts questions about crimes and the presidency. occasionally, the concerns arise because a president’s actual conduct naturally prompts questions about whether, when, and how chief executives may be prosecuted and punished. other times a sense of disquiet floats to the surface of the national discourse because strident opponents convince themselves that the incumbent has crossed a red line a criminal one and then pivot to the prospect of their bête noire behind bars. and sometimes, we cannot tell the difference between rightful alarm and partisan sniping. from the onset of his term, criminal accusations dogged donald trump. opponents eagerly claimed that he committed obstruction of justice, bribery, solicitation of illegal campaign contributions from foreign nations, and income tax evasion. the obstruction charge related to his firing of fbi director james comey and sundry acts to influence or halt the robert mueller investigation.[2] the bribery charge related to attempts to induce ukraine to investigate joseph biden via the dangling of foreign aid and an oval office meet and greet.[3] the campaign finance violations concerned trump’s alleged attempt to entice russia to release damaging information about hillary clinton and thereby bolster his 2016 presidential campaign.[4] finally, some supposed that trump may have committed tax and insurance fraud.[5] the dreadful denouement of his presidency raised the prospect of alarming scenarios that were previously unthinkable. in the wake of joseph biden’s projected triumph in the electoral college, president trump insisted that massive voter fraud had wrongfully denied him his rightful victory.[6] he litigated such claims, bringing more than a dozen suits.[7] each time he was a loser.[8] mindful that suits might fail, some private advisors allegedly urged him to deploy the military and hold a new, fraud free election.[9] relatedly, trump supposedly asserted that he might stay in the white house beyond the expiry of his term.[10] his utterances and actions before the storming of the u.s. capitol in january of 2021 led some to claim that he had committed crimes on the eve of his departure from office.[11] more than that, his acts (and especially the advice he may have received) raised the prospect that a president might foment or stage a coup to retain power. anti federalists had raised such concerns, with some pointing to the specter of a president at the head of the army, attempting to impose a despotism.[12] but that was perhaps the last time the possibility of a presidential coup was widely discussed. president trump’s tenure elevated certain hard questions in unprecedented ways. had he won reelection, one might wonder whether prosecutors would have targeted him for indictment or worse during his second term. relatedly, one must ask whether the rather deliberate and refined impeachment process is the sole constitutional response to an incipient or completed presidential coup. how could an unhurried impeachment process help arrest or foil an ongoing, possibly bloody coup? because men, and women, are not angels,[13] the question of whether an incumbent president can be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and punished will never go away. one can confidently predict that future presidents will face criminal investigations and that some prosecutors will be tempted to put the incumbent in the dock. the constitution supplies no obvious answer to the question of presidential amenability to prosecution and punishment, leading some to regard it as a “tough . . . constitutional brainteaser.”[14] let’s tease ourselves with this puzzler, bearing in mind that this is an issue where “reasonable people can disagree.”[15] the received wisdom is that an incumbent cannot be indicted, much less prosecuted, convicted, and punished. such ordeals must await the incumbent’s departure from office by resignation, efflux of term, or impeachment removal. that is the stance of the department of justice, voiced in 1973[16] and 2000.[17] according to this view, an incumbent can never be put in the dock, and a rectangular jail cell will never serve as an ersatz oval office. last year, justice samuel alito endorsed that orthodoxy, insisting that prosecuting an incumbent “is out of the question.”[18] he said this in the context of trump v. vance,[19] a case involving a state grand jury subpoena for the president’s personal records: if a sitting president were charged in new york county, would he be arrested and fingerprinted? . . . could he be sent to rikers island or be required to post bail? . . . if the president were charged with a complicated offense requiring a long trial, would he have to put his presidential responsibilities aside for weeks on end while sitting in a manhattan courtroom? . . . could he effectively carry out all his essential presidential responsibilities after the trial day ended and at the same time adequately confer with his trial attorneys regarding his defense? . . . and if he were convicted, could he be imprisoned? would aides be installed in a nearby cell? this entire imagined scene is farcical.[20] justice alito speaks for many eminent scholars, at least on this matter.[21] even as prosecution and punishment are apparently out of bounds, dogged, hard nosed investigations are not. i would hazard a guess that almost every scholar presumes that officials can investigate incumbents for evidence of crimes. the investigations of richard nixon and bill clinton suggest as much. in 2020, the supreme court bypassed the question of whether a state grand jury could investigate president trump, in part because lawyers conceded the point.[22] the concession suggests that the matter is hardly in dispute. relatedly, many likely suppose that officials, federal and state, may announce their considered judgment that the president is guilty of crimes. for instance, independent counsel kenneth starr declared that president clinton had committed federal offenses.[23] in 2019, attorney general william barr signaled that nothing precluded special counsel robert mueller from concluding that president trump had committed crimes.[24] the “normative power of the actual”[25] is hard to resist, making it rather difficult to argue that it is somehow unconstitutional to probe and condemn a sitting president. to sum up, the orthodoxy posits that officials can investigate the incumbent by digging far and wide for evidence of crimes, including by subpoenaing the incumbent. further, they can denounce her as an inveterate criminal before the press, before committees of congress, and in the pages of censorious reports. before any indictment or prosecution, however, the incumbent must depart office either voluntarily (via resignation or conclusion of her term) or involuntarily (after an impeachment conviction and removal). in other words, the conventional view is that while prosecutors may brand the president a base criminal, they cannot make her an actual convict. based on constitutional text, structure, and history,[26] i call into question that which “is out of the question.”[27] this article argues that a sitting president may be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and punished.[28] part i maintains that chief executives do not enjoy a host of implied, constitutionally grounded privileges and immunities. to be clear, i do not for a moment deny that there are sound policy rationales for sundry presidential protections. rather, i deny that the constitution itself grants any such screens, shields, or shelters. along the way, i reveal salient particulars that cast doubt on the orthodoxy that insists on implied criminal shields for the president. first, the constitution eschewed the example of some constitutions that granted express criminal law immunities to their chief executives. second, though james madison apparently sought to create express executive immunities at the constitutional convention, he was met with silence and indifference, perhaps suggesting that the delegates never meant to bestow any immunity against criminal prosecution. third, it is a mistake to imagine that the constitution implicitly grants the executive a comprehensive immunity from criminal prosecution and punishment, one markedly broader than the extremely narrow civil arrest privilege that federal legislators enjoy. that is to say, we should not infer truly sweeping immunities for the leader of the second branch that dwarf the express protections for members of the first. fourth, numerous founders declared that presidents would have no privileges or immunities and would, therefore, be on the same plane as ordinary citizens. finally, one sitting president was arrested for a minor crime and effectively admitted his guilt. that chief executive did not assert that as the sitting president, he was immune from arrest, charges, or punishment. part ii responds to arguments that supposedly undercut the claim that a sitting president may be prosecuted and punished. first, nothing in the constitution’s impeachment provisions signals that impeachment of the president or any other officer must precede trial and punishment. indeed, early statutes made clear that officers could be prosecuted and convicted while in office. moreover, in our nation’s history, a handful of federal officers were convicts before the house impeached them. second, any presidential incapacitation that arises from prosecution and punishment is immaterial. when the president is incapacitated for any reason, the vice president takes over as acting president,[29] a transition that ensures continuity, unity, and energy in the executive. this unique constitutional backstop undercuts the structural argument that the president cannot be prosecuted, much less punished. relatedly, arguments about presidential incapacity fail to draw distinctions amongst different crimes and across discrete phases of the criminal process, and, thus, fail to consider that some aspects of criminal procedure are hardly incapacitating. third, popular participation in the selection of the president has no bearing on presidential immunity. lastly, despite reasonable fears of parochial state prosecutors hounding a sitting president, there is no categorical bar on state prosecutions of federal officers. if one concludes that some presidential immunity from trial and punishment is valuable, even absolutely necessary, the constitution supplies ample means to satisfy this preference, or so part iii argues. congress can craft privileges and immunities for the office of the presidency that the constitution itself did not ordain and establish. using its necessary and proper power, congress can conclude that sitting presidents ought to be spared search warrants, subpoenas, arrests, prosecutions, convictions, or punishments.[30] or federal legislators could merely bar state prosecutions and punishments. or they could permit prosecutions for violations of some federal laws and suspend others until the incumbent has left office. the advantage of concluding that congress must supply any criminal immunity is that it is the institution best equipped to consider and balance all the relevant interests. it can better decide whether presidents ought to have blanket immunity, temporary shelter from prosecution, or partial protection from a subset of criminal laws. further, legislators are best positioned to alter statutory shields as circumstances warrant. before we tackle this constitutional puzzler, one cautionary note. while some will read this article as an attack on president trump, he is not this article’s focus. rather, i hope to articulate principles that were true of the constitution from its inception. discussing these issues in this context is hardly ideal, in part because many judgments are likely to be skewed by perceptions of our forty fifth president. though it may seem obtuse to some readers, i seek to reach legal conclusions without regard to him. my view is that constitutional readings ought not to be influenced by transient politics; hence it is wrong to favor fewer (or greater) presidential immunities based on the occupant of 1600 pennsylvania avenue. writing in the current context has its undoubted perils because both the writer and the audience may not transcend their biases. but it also has its benefits because it serves to sharpen the inquiry. real world problems help us tackle abstract legal questions head on. so, perhaps, we can exploit our discomfitures in the pursuit of better understanding our constitution. do incumbents enjoy an implied constitutional immunity that shields them from arrest, prosecution, and punishment? there are compelling reasons why the orthodox view should be greeted with skepticism. as a matter of text, executive immunities exist when they are explicitly granted. that is why several eighteenth century constitutions expressly bestowed criminal immunities upon their chief executives. indeed, given that the constitution explicitly grants an extremely narrow civil arrest immunity to representatives and senators, it makes little sense to infer that the constitution implicitly grants presidents an across the board immunity from arrest, prosecution, and punishment. as a matter of early history, many founders denied that presidents would have special legal immunities. on the contrary, there was a widespread sense that the presidency was never placed above the law, either temporarily or otherwise. as a matter of constitutional structure, certain executive wrongdoing might demand immediate action, lest the executive run amok while the drawn out impeachment process lumbers toward its uncertain conclusion. finally, although no president, sitting or otherwise, has yet sat at the defense table, much less been incarcerated, an incumbent was arrested and essentially admitted his guilt. at the outset, it is useful to sketch the claim that i reject and the arguments usually adduced in its favor. the orthodox view is somewhat straightforward. one can investigate the president ad infinitum. multiple investigations may proceed along parallel tracks: federal and state. further, prosecutors and investigators can even brand the incumbent a “criminal” several times over. but this far and no further. no one can arrest the president, indict her, drag her into court, prosecute her, or punish her. the constitution forbids these indignities and interferences. the arguments for these considerable immunities somewhat overlap. to support their stance, proponents of presidential immunity cite several factors, namely dishonor, distraction, incapacitation, impeachment, and a popular imprimatur. to arrest the incumbent is to arrest the proper and smooth functioning of the executive branch. to indict her is to unacceptably discredit her and damage her ability to function as chief executive. to drag her to the bar of the court and prosecute her is to improperly degrade and distract her. a prosecution, in particular, would cast grave disrepute on the incumbent, diminishing her authority and compelling her to choose between solemn constitutional duties and her personal liberty and reputation. to punish her with jail time is to unconstitutionally oust her from office. finally, and relatedly, impeachment is the constitutional mechanism specified for removal. no other lawful process can trigger a removal (or its functional equivalent) of the one constitutional officer who enjoys a nationwide popular cachet.[31] on the peripheries of these claims is a good deal of uncertainty. consider statutes of limitations. the department of justice’s office of legal counsel (olc) believes that while the constitution confers a temporary criminal immunity on the president, it does not also toll statutes of limitations.[32] this stance effectively means that presidents might never be prosecuted for some crimes because some statutes of limitations might expire while they were in office. others claim that the statutes may be tolled, presumably by the courts, effectively reading the constitution as granting the judiciary the authority to preserve the possibility of a belated criminal trial.[33] another doubtful area is whether the constitution establishes an absolute bar on arrests, prosecutions, and punishments or whether the supposed immunities are waivable. while the olc has not taken a position on the matter, one commentator suggests that a president could renounce these immunities.[34] other proponents of immunity may reject waivability, supposing that these shields exist to further the public weal and that the nation would be best served by non waivable immunities. one might suppose that presidents must be focused on the public’s business and cannot set aside their supposed constitutional shield in a bid to clear their names.[35] in pondering presidential immunity, competing hunches are at play. first, there is an intuition that presidents, because they occupy a unique office, should receive uniquely favorable treatment. such relief would be useful not so much to better their condition but instead to better ours. chief executives work for all of us. they should enjoy special protections so that they can better serve we the people. second, there is an offsetting intuition that, in america, no one is above the law, even temporarily. this intuition suggests that presidents should not enjoy any unusual dispensations, however exceptional their office. more precisely, perhaps we should not read the constitution as granting the president immunity from prosecution and punishment because any such privileges seem inconsistent with the undoubted constitutional principles that presidents can do wrong and all officials can be held to account. the first branch exercises the lion’s share of the most far reaching federal powers, including the war power, the authority to regulate commerce, and the powers to tax and spend.[36] the constitution carefully delineates rather circumscribed privileges and immunities for those who wield these solemn authorities. senators and representatives have three privileges and immunities. first, they are entitled to receive a salary from the treasury.[37] this rule generates a measure of separation and independence from their states, which cannot pay them salaries.[38] next, legislators are immune from arrest while in, going to, or coming from a legislative session.[39] this screen shields rather little, however. the supreme court has read this exception to signal that legislators are subject to arrest at all times for any crime, federal and state, including misdemeanors.[40] relatedly, legislators can be tried, convicted, and jailed for crimes even as they continue to serve in congress.[41] the result is that what appears at first blush to be a substantial privilege only encompasses civil arrests, a now obsolete category. lastly, legislators cannot be called to account (“questioned”) elsewhere for what they say in either chamber,[42] which amounts to an evidentiary privilege. in particular, what they say and do in either house cannot be used against them in legal proceedings outside the chambers.[43] this privilege is also limited because it fairly implies that what legislators say and do elsewhere may be held against them. at the threshold, the claim that a sitting president enjoys an implied immunity from all arrests, prosecutions, and punishments stands as a horse of a rather different color. first, while the constitution’s express arrest immunity does not apply to crimes, the non textual presidential immunity that conventional wisdom insists upon applies to every criminal matter. moreover, the immunity applies to the entire criminal process, far beyond arrest. for incumbents, there can be no arrests, no trials, and no punishments.[44] finally, the supposed criminal immunity applies not only to major crimes, like murder and treason, but also to relatively trivial offenses, like reckless driving.[45] second, this implied, across the board criminal immunity is ultralong because it is not tied to a congressional session and its fringes. the modern assertion is that presidents enjoy a privilege not merely when congress is in session but instead for their entire four year term.[46] of course, presidential immunity could extend for another four years should an incumbent secure a second term. and given the language of the twenty second amendment, certain presidents could be immune from criminal prosecution for ten years.[47] further, in thinking about whether this supposed immunity is really “temporary,” we must bear in mind that the original constitution lacked presidential term limits.[48] some founding era commentators predicted that presidents would serve for life, securing election repeatedly. they perhaps had in mind the new york governor who in 1787 was in the midst of his fourth consecutive three year term (he would go on to serve six consecutive terms).[49] given that presidents could serve for life before the twenty second amendment, presidents who committed crimes might, under the implied immunity theory, never be arrested, tried, or punished for their offenses.[50] in other words, those asserting that the original constitution granted immunity from criminal prosecution and punishment must stomach the possibility that it was a foundational constitutional principle that presidents accused of crimes, including the foulest, could escape scot free, never prosecuted much less penalized. third, the constitution contains one express privilege for the executive: congress must supply a salary.[51] this compensation privilege partially tracks the salary protections for legislators and judges.[52] the presence of three express legislative privileges and one explicit executive privilege counsels against reading the constitution as if it contained additional implicit privileges and immunities for members of congress or the president. it certainly would be odd to conclude that presidents implicitly enjoy a far reaching immunity from arrest, prosecution, and punishment (one that could last for decades at the founding) when their legislative counterparts have a narrow civil arrest immunity tied to congressional sessions. to be sure, expressio unius is not an inexorable command. but we have good cause to give it weight here because we have sound reasons to conclude that the variations in privileges and immunities are meaningful. for instance, while all three branches have compensation privileges, each compensation clause has peculiar wording to reflect the sense that differing tenures and powers necessitated divergent privileges.[53] fourth, no constitutional text relating to the executive hints at additional implied privileges and immunities. the grant of “executive power” in the article ii vesting clause confers authority over law execution, foreign affairs, and executive officers.[54] this clause is an exceptionally poor vehicle for conveying privileges or immunities because powers are different in kind from privileges and immunities. there is a reason why legislative powers are listed in one section of article i (section 8) and legislative privileges and immunities in another (section 6). powers are distinct from privileges and immunities in the same way that individual rights are conceptually distinct from constitutional powers. further, no other article ii provision can plausibly be read as conferring privileges or immunities  not the appointment power, the pardon power, or the treaty power.[55] relatedly, no one ought to read provisions imposing duties, such as the presidential oath or the faithful execution clauses, as if they covertly convey privileges and immunities.[56] though constitutional duties may necessitate the grant of some powers to ensure their satisfaction, duties do not themselves convey powers or privileges. i should add that i am unaware of anyone from the founding era contending that the vesting clause, or for that matter any other clause of article ii, grants immunity from prosecution or otherwise. the arguments, such as they exist, are more structural in nature, resting on arguments about the constitution’s interstices. in sum, we ought to be reluctant to infer or invent an astonishingly sweeping presidential immunity shielding the incumbent not only from arrest but also from trial and punishment because it would be far broader than the trivial arrest immunity that barely shields legislators. relatedly, article ii conveys one limited executive privilege a promised (but unspecified) salary.[57] when one juxtaposes this narrow, express salary privilege to article i’s grant of three privileges and immunities, it requires a leap to imagine that the constitution implicitly grants presidents a complete immunity from arrest, prosecution, or punishment. put another way, we should not read constitutional silence on presidential arrestability as if that muteness somehow heralded an unrivaled immunity from detention, trial, and punishment. a perusal of history points to the same conclusion: presidents lack immunity from criminal trial, conviction, or punishment. consider the criminal amenability of one set of precursors to the federal executive: namely, state executives. some state constitutions made crystal clear that their chief executives (and others) could be prosecuted and punished. maryland had a constitutional rule that “if any governor, chancellor, [or] judge . . . shall receive . . . any part of the profits of any [other] office . . . his . . . appointment . . . shall be void,” and he “shall suffer the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury” after “conviction in a court of law.”[58] this was a narrow provision, designed to ensure that officers did not usurp funds due to other officers. but it did mention the governor particularly. the maryland constitution further declared that if “any person” bribed, or received a bribe, in connection with an appointment to any office (including the governorship), they would be “forever disqualified” from holding office “on conviction in a court of law.”[59] this too suggested criminal amenability of the governor, albeit with removal as the constitutional penalty. similarly, north carolina provided that the governor, and others, could be “prosecuted” for constitutional violations, maladministration, or corruption upon “presentment of the grand jury of any court of supreme jurisdiction.”[60] before the constitution’s creation, some states supplied express privileges for their executives. quite a few guaranteed salaries.[61] but occasionally the privileges were broader still. for instance, the south carolina constitution of 1776 decreed that the new state “president” would have the privileges that the colonial assembly had previously accorded the royal governor.[62] this was an express incorporation of known privileges for the new executive. more crucially for our purposes, some state constitutions granted express criminal immunities. the 1776 virginia constitution provided that its governor could be impeached only “when he is out of office.”[63] the effect of this immunity may seem obscure to modern readers because we regard impeachment almost exclusively as a means of removing officers, at least at the federal level. but virginia adopted the british impeachment framework. in great britain, an impeachment conviction could result in “pains” and “penalties” of the sort visited upon ordinary offenders.[64] so too in virginia.[65] the result is that the provision granted a limited immunity from certain criminal processes: namely, the impeachment process. whether virginia meant to preclude all criminal punishment of its sitting chief executive is unclear.[66] delaware’s 1776 constitution was similar. article xxiii protected an incumbent chief executive (the “president”) from impeachment, conviction, and any “pains and penalties” stemming from impeachment.[67] but the article also provided that “all officers shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior at common law.”[68] this particular clause of article xxiii arguably applied to the governor because he was an “officer,”[69] meaning that the delaware constitution contemplated prosecutions of sitting presidents. in any event, what is certain is that in virginia and delaware the chief executives had a special and express criminal immunity: namely, immunity from the impeachment process and its potential for penal sanctions. some foreign constitutions likewise granted textual immunities. the french constitution of 1791 declared that the king was “inviolable.”[70] but it also provided for two forms of abdication.[71] express abdication consisted of a formal renunciation of the crown.[72] constructive abdication consisted of actions like fleeing the nation or putting himself at the head of an army.[73] once a monarch abdicated, he was an ordinary citizen and could be prosecuted for his post monarchical acts.[74] in the polish lithuanian constitution of the same year, the crown was deemed “sacred and inviolable” and could not be held “responsible to the nation” by any legal process.[75] perhaps because the reformed polish crown was but a figurehead,[76] there was no perceived need for any exceptions to this express immunity. given the practice of expressly incorporating desired executive privileges and immunities, even for crowned monarchs, it would have been rather surprising if the subject did not come up in the constitutional convention. as discussed, the framers incorporated an executive privilege concerning compensation. this was important because it prevented congress from using salary as a means of extorting chief executives. in the colonies, governors received pay only if they first danced to the legislatures’ tune, usually after signing bills.[77] according to benjamin franklin, salaries were spent on “the purchase of good laws.”[78] under the federal constitution, such coercion is impossible because even the most obstructionist presidents have a guaranteed salary. as it turns out, the delegates were presented with a golden opportunity to grant other needful executive privileges and immunities. late in the philadelphia convention, as legislative privileges and immunities were before the delegates, james madison apparently “suggested also the necessity of considering what privileges ought to be allowed to the executive.”[79] madison, coming from virginia, saw the need to take up the matter. he knew that virginia and delaware had some executive immunities related to the criminal process[80] and hoped for some to be granted to the new president. his comment on the “necessity” of taking up the subject for deliberation perhaps signaled that, in early september of 1787, the proposed executive lacked criminal immunities, temporary or otherwise. madison’s plea fell on deaf ears. besides a guaranteed salary, the delegates never discussed, much less voted upon, any executive privileges or immunities, suggesting that they never sought to grant any additional protections for the presidency. a guaranteed salary was the only executive privilege. that is largely how people outside the convention subsequently read the constitution: there were no implied privileges or immunities for the executive. this point was made in three contexts. first, several commentators observed that the presidency had fewer privileges than the british monarchy or, for that matter, than members of congress.[81] second, some persons noted that presidents had the same privileges as ordinary people and, thus, were not placed on a pedestal.[82] third, a few merely observed that presidents had no special privileges.[83] a number of the constitution’s warmest advocates drew a contrast with the british monarchy. while british sovereigns could “do no wrong,” meaning they were immune from all judicial process (both impeachment and ordinary criminal trials),[84] the american president would be different. seeking to refute the notion that the constitution established a monarchy, “americanus,” a new jerseyan supporter of the constitution,[85] wrote an essay observing that while the king was “above the reach of all courts of law” and was “sacred and inviolable,” presidents would not be.[86] “[n]one of [these immunities] are vested in the president.”[87] in virginia, “a freeholder” argued that presidents would not be monarchs because they could “be impeached and removed at any time; or . . . be indicted if the case should require it.”[88] both federalists were discussing incumbents and their lack of immunities. after all, no former chief executive is ever “the president.” another federalist likewise stated that courts could exercise jurisdiction over presidents and, thus, presidents would not be monarchical. the president “is under the immediate controul of the constitution, which if he should presume to deviate from, he would be immediately arrested in his career and summoned to answer for his conduct before a federal court, where strict justice and equity would undoubtedly preside.”[89] this advocate of the constitution apparently concluded that presidents could be dragged into court and that they might face criminal charges. one proponent drew a clever three way comparison. “an american citizen” tench coxe contrasted the british monarchy with the american presidency. while the king could do no wrong, presidents would be quite different: “[h]is person is not so much protected as that of a member of the house of representatives; for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law.”[90] coxe, who later served as assistant to the treasury secretary, understood that presidents have fewer privileges and immunities than federal legislators. moreover, he asserted that presidents “may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law,”[91] meaning they could be arrested, tried, and punished. in other words, when presidents violated the law, they could be held responsible like anyone else, i.e., by ordinary civil and criminal process. others emphasized coxe’s last point that presidents were on the same plane as ordinary people. pennsylvanian james wilson asked: does even the first magistrate of the united states draw to himself a single privilege or security that does not extend to every person throughout the united states? is there a single distinction attached to him, in this system, more than there is to the lowest officer in the republic?[92] these were rhetorical questions. presidents would enjoy no unique privileges or immunities concerning the application of the law. similarly, a marylander wrote that significant executive authority was vested in “a single man, the representative of the people, chosen once in four years, and enjoying no privilege, as an individual, more than his fellow citizens.”[93] in north carolina, james iredell assured that: no man is better than his fellow citizens, nor can pretend to any superiority over the meanest man in the country. if the president does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself, and no other man merely to screen him. if he commits any misdemeanor in office, he is impeachable, removable from office, and incapacitated to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit. if he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country, and in capital cases may be deprived of his life.[94] though anti federalists were eager to underscore the constitution’s many monarchical elements, one agreed that presidents were no more privileged than ordinary citizens. the federal farmer observed that presidents would have “no rights, but in common with the people.”[95] in other words, though endowed with momentous powers, presidents had no more privileges than did ordinary citizens. finally, a few just said the president had no privileges. james wilson, quoted earlier, also said that though the president is “placed high, and is possessed of power, far from being contemptible; yet not a single privilege is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.”[96] the president was subject to the laws and bereft of even a “single privilege.” addressing all three branches, one new yorker rubbished charges of an aristocracy, noting there were no subterfuges regarding powers and privileges: “the constitution plainly, openly, and without disguise tells us the titles, offices, powers, and privileges of these ‘chief agents,’ and the purposes of their appointment. what snake in the grass is there here?”[97] in other words, constitutional officers only enjoyed express privileges (granted “plainly, openly, and without disguise”). reading this, one might well conclude that because the constitution granted no privileges plainly and openly concerning the criminal process, none were conveyed to any branch. in sum, federalists repeatedly described the presidency as lacking implicit privileges or immunities. although anti federalists saw a monarchy in the presidency and criticized it in a host of ways, they did not respond to federalists by insisting that the constitution conveyed a host of privileges and immunities to chief executives. indeed, some opponents of the constitution agreed with federalists that the presidency lacked implied shields and protections. despite sharp disagreements on other matters, there seemed to be none on this point  at least at this stage. under the new government, this view continued to be voiced. for instance, in 1789, some said the president could be “put to gaol for debt,”[98] a comment that fairly implied that presidents had no privileges from criminal prosecution. after all, if a president could be sent to debtor’s prison, he surely could be imprisoned for crimes. picking up the more general point, senator william grayson of virginia was adamant that the “president was not above the law,” arguing that presidents likely would be sued and that they might be prosecuted for murder.[99] he thought it particularly absurd to suppose that judicial writs should issue in the president’s name, as some senators proposed. if this happened, the nation might witness this incongruous indictment: “the jurors of our lord the president, present that the president committed murder.”[100] his argument was entirely premised on his belief that presidents were subject to the criminal process. a decade later, senator charles pinckney observed that the framers carefully specified privileges because they feared abuse: let us inquire, why the constitution should have been so attentive to each branch of congress, so jealous of their privileges, and have shewn so little to the president of the united states in this respect. . . . no privilege of this kind was intended for your executive . . . . the convention . . . well knew that this was an important point, and no subject had been more abused than privilege. they therefore determined to set the example, in merely limiting privilege to what was necessary, and no more.[101] pinckney could speak from experience; he had been a delegate to the constitutional convention. because he was from south carolina, perhaps he knew of the grant of executive privileges in that state’s 1776 constitution. in any event, the senator had it right. privileges and immunities were not left to shadowy implication to be inferred by readers. save for a guaranteed salary, the american president has no other privileges and, hence, had fewer privileges and immunities than did members of congress. the constitution had eschewed the examples of delaware, virginia, south carolina, poland, and france by creating a limited criminal shield for congress (the speech and debate clause) and none for the chief executive. after the constitution’s creation, some in congress regarded sitting presidents as objects of reverence. such legislators favored truly spectacular presidential immunities. one senator supposedly said that no one could touch a single hair on the president’s head.[102] another said the president was “a kind of sacred person,”[103] meaning unreachable by the ordinary courts. a third said the president was not “subject to any process whatever[,] could have no action whatever brought against him[,] and was above the power of all judges, justices, etc.”[104] presidents were only subject to one form of judicial process: the impeachment process. such pronouncements led pennsylvanian william maclay to wonder what would happen in the case of a murderous president: “suppose the president committed murder in the street. impeach him? . . . but [suppose] . . . he runs away. but i will put up another case. suppose he continues his murders daily, and neither house is sitting to impeach him.”[105] senator maclay’s queries never received satisfactory responses. that was true in 1789, and it remains the case to this day. maclay made several perceptive points. first, if no one can arrest a president, the latter might never face punishment if she fled before any impeachment. consider a modified version of his hypothetical: the house impeaches the president for treason. on the eve of an expected senate conviction and removal, to be followed by a regular criminal trial, the president heads overseas, ostensibly for a “fact finding trip.” everyone knows the real reason the president does not want to be arrested, tried, and punished. second, if a sitting president cannot be arrested, he might continue to commit nefarious acts while the nation anxiously waited for an elaborate and time consuming impeachment process to stammer to a conclusion. concluding that presidents cannot be arrested means that presidents can act with impunity for weeks or months as the impeachment process ambles away. third, if the house is not sitting when a president commits crimes, it cannot disinter the creaky impeachment machinery. we must remember that in earlier eras neither chamber was sitting for the entire year. in 1790, for instance, congress met for less than 200 days.[106] again, under the theory of presidential immunity from the criminal process, an incumbent may continue her wrongdoing with absolutely no check  not even the possibility of arrest during the months congress is out of session. moreover, there is no constitutional mechanism for calling congress back early, save for the president’s power to summon the chambers on “extraordinary [o]ccasions.”[107] needless to say, the president will not summon congress when she is accused of serious misdeeds, much less when she seeks to overthrow the established order. in the meantime, until a delayed and protracted impeachment comes to its close, nothing may be done to halt the criminal acts of a president. even worse, there is a further parade of horribles that senator maclay failed to mention, a sad procession that casts doubt on the claim that presidents have immunity from criminal process and punishment. suppose the incumbent orders her servile aides to arrest hundreds of representatives and senators.[108] the constitution provides that the chambers must have quorums to act.[109] without a quorum, neither chamber may take any constitutional act, save for attempting to round up members to secure a quorum.[110] the preclusion of quorums would wholly block any attempt to impeach in the house and, thereafter, to remove via conviction in the senate. knowing this, a president hell bent on power likely would arrest her strongest adversaries, and the only ones who apparently have any chance of lawfully halting her vile measures: namely, members of congress. indeed, a cunning president might arrest no more than fifty one senators and thereby incapacitate the impeachment system. no senate quorum means no senate trial. no senate trial means no removal from office. and under the logic of those who infer an unstated presidential immunity from arrest, prosecution, and punishment, incapacitating the senate means that there exists no lawful means of incapacitating the rogue. while under our responsible constitution a president certainly can “do wrong,” apparently nothing official could be done to halt her wrongs, no matter how wicked, unless members of congress managed to escape her clutches. in the face of the president who incapacitates congress, society cannot be utterly hamstrung while she goes about committing wrongs, heinous or otherwise. surely other authorities can arrest and incapacitate her. suppose a general, faithful to the constitution, confronts a usurping president and halts the president’s attempts to arrest federal legislators. must the loyal general do no more than free the arrested senators and representatives and release her commander in chief, thereby permitting the latter to commit more mayhem? surely the dutiful general should be able to detain the president and see that she is tried, possibly in the ordinary courts. it cannot be that the wicked president may continue her coup as the nation awaits a house impeachment and a senate trial that may never occur. finally, the absence of quorums in one or both chambers hardly exhausts the profound difficulties. senator maclay assumed that murder is an impeachable offense. but this is hardly evident. in particular, we must wrestle with the possibility that though a president has committed criminal offenses, and may continue to do so, a large enough cohort of either chamber may conclude that such crimes are not impeachable because they are not “high crimes and misdemeanors.”[111] during the clinton impeachment, some of his defenders insisted that only official acts were impeachable offenses.[112] this would exclude assaults and murders, at least when done in a private capacity. if many crimes, dreadful or otherwise, are not impeachable because the president committed them in his personal capacity, then it follows that the president cannot be removed and may continue to commit such crimes with impunity for the duration of his term. these scenarios might seem farfetched. at least they did until late 2020. as noted earlier, after joseph biden seemed the projected winner, president trump asserted that he was the victim of massive voter fraud.[113] some advisors urged him to use the military and hold a new election.[114] for his part, trump hinted that he might try to stay in office beyond january 20, 2021.[115] the latter possibility may have been a trial balloon designed to gauge popular support within his base for the idea. the greater the popular backing of the idea, the more it becomes a plausible option worth mulling. was trump singular in considering such dark possibilities? time will tell. what is clear is that as society becomes increasingly polarized along partisan lines it is easier to imagine the worst of the other side and to believe that the winners must have cheated in some way. we might well witness other losing presidents complain that their partisan opponents stole their elections, and we might see greater public support for the use of official resources the military in particular to vindicate the claim that an election was stolen and to prop up the supposed victor. any interpretation of the constitution that demands impeachment and removal before arrest and prosecution of a president makes it possible for a chief executive to continue to violate the law, including criminal laws, and to continue to subvert the constitution. the arrest of a sitting president serves two distinct purposes: to ensure presence at trial and to incapacitate someone who might commit further crimes and constitutional wrongs. of course, incapacitation is impossible if the criminal justice system must await a protracted house impeachment and senate trial that might never occur or, worse yet, might result in an acquittal of someone guilty of crimes but not impeachable offenses. if i am right, what are we to make of the statements from a few founding era senators that courts could not issue any process to presidents and that presidents were sacred and untouchable? of course, i believe they were mistaken. but why they were mistaken is interesting and revealing. they were wrong because they extrapolated from a now obscure interpretation of the constitution. these senators read the constitution, perceived a limited monarchy, and then inferred that presidents must be above all judicial process save for the impeachment. they were hardly alone in espying a monarch; many people observed that the presidency resembled a monarchy, including thomas jefferson,[116] john adams,[117] several anti federalists,[118] and even foreigners.[119] the vesting of considerable powers veto, treaty, appointment, pardon, military command, and others in a single person naturally brought to mind a monarchy. we overlook the resemblance because we forget that elective monarchies were a common species of monarchy in the eighteenth century and because we are unfamiliar with the categories of mixed monarchies and mixed republics.[120] montesquieu himself said that england was a “republic, disguised under the form of a monarchy.”[121] this sounds jarring to our ears. the senators’ mistake was building indiscriminately upon the constitution’s many monarchical elements. they were hardly alone. the “monarchical” party in congress pursued a grand title for the president (his highness),[122] wanted presidents listed in the enacting clauses of statutes (be it enacted by the president, with congress),[123] and sought to have judicial writs issued in the president’s name (george washington hereby commands you to attend court).[124] the house rejected these attempts to make the system even more monarchical. but that did not stop the movement, as the supreme court unilaterally decided to have judicial process issue in the name of george washington.[125] in any event, the point is that there was a struggle between different conceptions of the constitution. as thomas jefferson put it years later: where a constitution, like ours, wears a mixed aspect of monarchy and republicanism, it’s citizens will naturally divide into two classes of sentiment . . . . some will consider it as an elective monarchy which had better be made hereditary, and therefore endeavor to lead towards that all the forms and principles of it’s administration.[126] jefferson was right. in the early years, some saw more monarchy in the constitution than was warranted and sought to add to the constitution’s monarchical elements. modern advocates of presidential immunity never expressly invoke monarchy. they would run away from any association. moreover, they do not make the sort of sweeping statements that senators made in 1789; they do not claim the president has complete immunity from judicial or congressional process. but elements of the modern case for implied immunity echo the assertions that an unabashed monarchist would make. for instance, the olc has argued that the president “is the symbolic head of the nation. to wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus in both foreign and domestic affairs.”[127] i consider related claims at length in part ii. for present purposes, note that the assertion is somewhat redolent of a monarchy. not the bicycle monarchs of modern europe, mind you, but the powerful kings of the eighteenth century. the claim is that because presidents are icons of the nation they also must be “inviolable.” this is an inference too far. though the presidency surely resembles a monarchy, neither the office, nor its transient occupants, are sacrosanct. presidents are not sacred persons.[128] new york and new jersey indicted vice president aaron burr for killing alexander hamilton, but burr was never tried for these crimes.[129] in an orchestrated move, vice president spiro agnew pled “no contest” to federal crimes at the precise moment he resigned.[130] but the department of justice already had concluded that a vice president could be tried while in office.[131] no one has yet indicted, much less prosecuted and convicted, a sitting president. some might believe that this practice of abstention is important as a matter of originalist methodology[132] or otherwise. they might contend that there is an established practice of not arresting, indicting, or prosecuting our presidents, one that we ought to accept as a form of common law. the difficulty with such claims is that one can discover and describe any number of patterns. those favoring truly sweeping immunity might take the argument to its extreme, asserting that practice establishes that presidents can never be prosecuted, even after leaving office. it would seem that no president has ever been prosecuted, either while in office or after having left.[133] contrariwise, those favoring presidential amenability might infer a rather different lesson by drawing a different circle. they might argue that all of our federal officers, executive and judicial, are amenable to the reach of the criminal law, at least in their private capacity. that is the lesson of aaron burr, spiro agnew, and federal judges, some of whom were prosecuted and jailed while in office.[134] in other words, by expanding the category of officers, they can say that practice clearly favors their conception of presidential accountability. my point is that there may be no neutral or natural way of describing practices. what counts for the numerator (the number of crimes) and the denominator (the relevant officer pool) is often in the eye of the beholder. moreover, we should put little weight on the absence of specific practices of arresting or prosecuting. some practices are unprecedented until they are not.[135] and, as contrary practices accumulate, that which seemed exceptional may become routine. we have particular reasons for discounting the apparent absence of certain practices vis à vis presidents in particular. one reason is that a set of prosecutors most likely to have jurisdiction over sitting presidents u.s. attorneys serves at the president’s pleasure. subordinates are rather unlikely to hound their superiors. furthermore, i suppose that most presidents have done nothing criminal, making it difficult to draw inferences from the absence of arrests or prosecutions. when you have prosecutors beholden to the targets and a small sample size of malfeasance, one should not expect a rich history of arrests and prosecutions. in any event, we may belatedly discover that sitting presidents have had a few brushes with crime and punishment. a few years ago, the washington post recounted how a sitting president was arrested and taken to a police station, posted a bond, and failed to contest his guilt.[136] in 1872, a black police officer, william h. west, arrested president ulysses s. grant for speeding in his carriage.[137] then, as now, reckless driving imperils innocent bystanders. the day before the actual arrest, west had merely stopped the president.[138] after grant asked what was amiss, something every speeder does in the hopes that feigning innocence will somehow confuse the police, officer west replied, “i want to inform you, mr. president, that you are violating the law by speeding along this street.”[139] in that first brush with the law, grant received no more than an admonition. the next day, grant sped again, and officer west halted him once more.[140] west apparently said, “i am very sorry, mr. president, to have to do it, for you are the chief of the nation . . . but duty is duty, sir, and i will have to place you under arrest.”[141] “all right,” said grant, “where do you want me to go with you?”[142] west drove grant’s carriage to the police station, and grant posted twenty dollars in collateral for the next day’s court appearance.[143] the president’s compatriots, each of whom was also guilty, also posted collateral.[144] in today’s money, this would amount to north of $400.[145] but president grant did not appear the next day, likely because he was guilty and thought it better to forfeit the collateral.[146] the champions of presidential immunity have yet to address president grant’s run in with the police, his arrest, and what i would regard as his de facto guilty plea. they have not attempted to fit the episode into their theory of presidential immunity from arrest, trial, and punishment. officer west’s respectful but firm treatment, and president grant’s willing acceptance of it, are highly pertinent. the man known as “unconditional surrender”[147] wholly surrendered to west. grant’s submission signaled a welcome willingness to honor a familiar principle: every american is equal before the law. president grant did not hide behind his title and position, resist arrest, or even contest his obvious guilt. it would have been galling and absurd had grant declared that he could not be bothered to go to the police station because, after all, he had to conduct the nation’s business. a president engrossed in the idle and dangerous amusement of racing carriages on city streets simply could not be seen to moan that an arrest and a trip to the police station would distract from his official calling. * * * there are many sound reasons to reject the claim of presidential immunity from the criminal process. textually, executive immunities exist when they are specifically granted, as was true in many constitutions of the era. in the absence of such immunities, executives were subject to criminal law. relatedly, it makes little sense to infer a sweeping immunity from any criminal process, especially an immunity that dwarfs the extremely narrow shields expressly granted to members of the first branch. as a matter of early history, many denied that presidents had unique legal immunities. instead, many observed that our executive, however powerful, was never placed above the law, either temporarily or otherwise. unlike the british monarch, american presidents did not enjoy the protection of the legal fiction that they could do no wrong. as a matter of structure, as senator maclay pointed out in the first congress, certain forms of executive wrongdoing might necessitate an immediate response, lest the executive run wild while a plodding impeachment process lumbers toward an uncertain conclusion. from the perspective of practice, a sitting president has been arrested, and arguably punished, thereby establishing a precedent for presidential amenability to the criminal law. president grant’s laudable behavior reflects an eminently sensible (and correct) reading of the constitution. our powerful presidents are just like us; they too lack constitutional immunities relating to ordinary criminal process. a straightforward reading of the constitution that presidents do not enjoy a constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution and punishment best coheres with text, structure, history, and practice. but i have yet to give the many counterarguments their full due. first is the notion that even if article ii does not grant any special privileges, article i does. in particular, some might suppose that the impeachment clauses of article i mandate a sequence: impeachment and removal first, followed by criminal sanction. second, a few insist that presidents must have some immunities or else their office cannot function the way the constitution supposes it must. per joseph story, immunity is “necessarily implied from the nature of [the executive’s] functions.”[148] third, perhaps the nationwide election of presidents and the expectations of the american people justify some immunity. lastly, perhaps the unhappy prospect of partisan and parochial state prosecutors persecuting the chief magistrate of the united states forces us to recognize a narrow immunity against state prosecutions and punishments. article ii, section 4 announces which officers may be impeached and the permissible grounds of impeachment.[149] provisions in article i lay out the process.[150] one may be relevant to the sequencing of impeachment and ordinary prosecutions: judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.[151] some might imagine that this judgment clause signals that a criminal process against an impeachable officer can commence only after house impeachment and senate trial, conviction, and removal. indeed, publius noted that presidents may be impeached, tried, and removed, and be “afterwards” subject to the “ordinary course of law.”[152] no one doubts that the constitution contains provisions imposing a sequence. under article v, amendments must be proposed and sent to the states before the latter may ratify them.[153] similarly, per the presentment clause, a president cannot veto a bill in advance of its presentment.[154] and though the constitution does not declare as much, everyone understands that house impeachment must precede senate trial. to read the judgment clause as if it mandated a particular order of proceedings is to misread it. the clause does not demand a sequence akin to the nursery rhyme’s lesson of “first comes love, then comes marriage, and then comes baby in the baby carriage.” rather, the clause signals that principles of double jeopardy do not attach to impeachment proceedings. hence, while a senate conviction does not bar a criminal prosecution, a senate conviction is hardly a necessary precursor for criminal proceedings. more generally, a criminal prosecution might precede a house impeachment or, for that matter, senate trial, conviction, and removal. reading the clause as imposing a sequence may require us to suppose that an officer who is acquitted by the senate can never be tried in the ordinary courts. the judgment clause provides that “the party convicted” is “liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment.”[155] in other words, we might have to suppose that the double jeopardy exception only applies to people convicted, at least as a matter of the text. that is, if the senate does not “convict[],” then “the party” is, by negative implication, not “liable” to prosecution because her acquittal in the senate has a preclusive effect on any criminal proceedings. further, suppose enough senators conclude that, though an officer impeached by the house has committed several felonies, the offenses are not impeachable because they do not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.”[156] in that case, the officer felon could not be removed via impeachment and, therefore, would forever evade prosecution and punishment, even after she left office. after all, the officer would not have been “convicted,” and, therefore, would not be “liable” to prosecution. needless to say, this is a bizarre result because it suggests that certain guilty officers can never be criminally prosecuted.[157] early congresses bypassed all these absurdities, repeatedly concluding that the clause imposed no impeachment first rule. legislators enacted laws making clear that sitting officers could be prosecuted. indeed, congress repeatedly decreed that a conviction would trigger a statutory removal from office, thereby rendering it manifest that incumbents could be prosecuted. in the 1789 treasury act, congress declared that officers who violated certain provisions would be “guilty of a high misdemeanor,” would have to pay a three thousand dollar penalty, and “shall upon conviction be removed from office, and forever thereafter incapable of holding any office.”[158] similarly, a tax act provided that “officer[s] of the customs . . . . convicted” of taking bribes would “be forever disabled from holding any office of trust or profit under the united states.”[159] another act stated that port collectors and surveyors convicted of filing false reports or misappropriating funds would be “rendered incapable of serving in any office of trust or profit under the united states.”[160] a similar law ousted tax collectors who colluded to evade the spirit taxes or embezzled funds.[161] finally, and most tellingly, an act provided that federal “judges” convicted of bribery may be “fined and imprisoned” and “shall forever be disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust, or profit under the united states.”[162] in these acts, congress made clear that sitting officers could be tried and that courts would oust those found guilty. by signing these acts, the first president must have regarded these provisions as constitutional. as a matter of more recent practice, ordinary courts have convicted federal officers before impeachment and removal. while on the bench, circuit judge otto kerner was convicted of mail fraud.[163] before the senate ousted district judge harry claiborne, he was found guilty of tax evasion.[164] district judge walter nixon was languishing in jail, incarcerated for perjury, before the house impeached him and the senate convicted him.[165] and samuel kent was convicted of obstruction of justice while serving as a district judge.[166] to date, the senate has not convicted a sitting executive officer, likely because presidents fired malfeasant subordinates or because such wrongdoers had the good sense to resign.[167] despite the absence of such a case, no scholar that i am aware of doubts that civil executive officers, other than the president, can be convicted and punished before impeachment. because there is but one judgment clause applicable to all civil officers, we have little reason to read the clause as if it created a special rule for some subset of those officers. just as the power to “regulate commerce” should have the same scope when it comes to interstate, foreign, and indian commerce,[168] so too the judgment clause should prescribe the same rules for presidents and every other civil officer of the united states. we should not read that unitary judgment clause as if it mandated dual sequencing rules: one made to order for presidents and one for everyone else. if i am right, what are we to make of alexander hamilton’s claim that after impeachment, presidents are liable to prosecution? he was right. the president, like every other officer, can be prosecuted after impeachment and removal. but that is not the same thing as saying that presidents could be prosecuted only after impeachment and conviction. i doubt that we should read publius as declaring that presidents can be prosecuted only after impeachment and removal.[169] further, i question whether hamilton much thought about sequencing. in context, this makes sense. his chief point related to double jeopardy, not sequencing. moreover, because the judgment clause mentions impeachment first and criminal prosecution second, that ordering may cause some to hastily assume that there is a mandatory sequence. but if a commentator’s focus is not on the particular matter of sequencing, any comments on the ordering of process are the product of casual thinking. in sum, the judgment clause’s peculiar language may have led some astray. oddly it has misled them only in the case of the president. some may read this generic text as if it created a special presidential rule to reflect a special office. but though the presidency is exceptional, there is no warrant for reading one text and discovering within it two radically divergent rules: one for a unique office and one for every other civil officer. if the judgment clause does not mandate a sequence for presidents (or otherwise) perhaps the nature of the office mandates special treatment for the presidency. the best argument for a unique presidential immunity is structural and rests on intuitions that did not spring to the mind of president grant as officer west arrested him on the streets of washington. giving voice to some such hunches, joseph story argued, there are other incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. the president cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office; and for this purpose his person must be deemed, in civil cases at least, to possess an official inviolability.[170] what justice story said might be thought to apply a fortiori to criminal cases. in fact, a careful reading of justice story perhaps suggests the opposite that the case for “incidental” immunity is most strong in “civil cases” and, therefore, less weighty in other contexts like impeachment and criminal proceedings.[171] in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people could be arrested in civil cases.[172] so perhaps story did not mean for his claim to apply to criminal prosecutions. if so, story read the constitution as granting presidents an immunity similar to the one it expressly grants legislators. there is a certain intuitive appeal to this interpretation. after all, the case for discovering immunity in criminal cases is weaker than in civil cases, at least in one sense. in a civil case, one or more persons seek to vindicate their personal rights. in contrast, in a criminal case the government seeks to vindicate far weightier societal interests. story’s claim suffers from further ambiguities. the phrase “while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office” could mean that a sitting president can never be arrested, imprisoned, or detained. this is the broadest reading of story, one that advocates of immunity are eager to espouse. yet he likely meant no more than that a president, while engaged in official duties, cannot be arrested, imprisoned, or detained in civil cases. there was no reason to mention the official duty qualifier if story meant to argue for a categorical rule against arrest, etc. that would leave open the distinct possibility that arrest, imprisonment, or detention may occur when the president is not acting to “discharge . . . the duties of his office” that is, whenever she acts in her private capacity. that exactly describes president grant’s arrest. at the time, grant was in no way “discharg[ing] the duties of his office.” he was drag racing. relatedly, to say that the president possesses an “official inviolability” may only mean that she is immune from arrest, trial, and sanction when the underlying acts are official ones. when a president commits wrongs in her private capacity, her “official inviolability” is irrelevant. again, because grant was not fulfilling his official duties as he sped along the streets of washington, he could be arrested and punished. whatever one should make of justice story’s assertions, professors akhil amar and brian kalt have built on them and applied them to ordinary crimes.[173] in a nuanced argument, amar and kalt argue that the presidency is an exceptional office and, therefore, must enjoy protections not afforded to federal judges and other federal executives.[174] the presidency is unique because one person controls an entire branch, whereas congress and the courts can function even if one, two, or dozens of officers are incapacitated in some way.[175] moreover, prosecution (and of course punishment) would “hijack[]” her time, diverting her from her executive responsibilities.[176] lastly, the presidency is a full time job, requiring vigilance and constant attention.[177] the president is on call “24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”[178] as amar has said elsewhere, the presidency “never sleeps.”[179] in contrast, the courts are routinely out of session, and congress often seems to slumber even when nominally in session. what may be completely fitting for members of the other branches criminal prosecution while in office is entirely inappropriate for our unique presidents. for its part, the olc has made several arguments, some of which overlap with those of amar and kalt. first, the stigma from prosecution would compromise a president’s ability to satisfy her high constitutional obligations.[180] second, the burden of preparing a defense would hamper her ability to fulfill her constitutional duties.[181] third, incarceration would render it impossible to satisfy her duties.[182] finally, the “constitution specifies” impeachment, not prosecution, as “a mechanism for accusing a sitting president of wrongdoing.”[183] let me take up the arguments that prosecutions and punishments would discredit, distract, and disable the executive. while president grant seems to have been hardly bothered by his arrest he supposedly smiled when stopped the second time by officer west no one should doubt that other arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations might be disruptive, even incapacitating. [184] but the relevant question is whether the executive can function when the president has been indicted, prosecuted, convicted, or jailed. can the second branch continue to generate the needful energy, attention, and focus? yes. the olc argues that the disgrace of indictment and prosecution “threaten[s] the president’s ability to act as the nation’s leader in the domestic and foreign spheres.”[185] the stigma that comes from an indictment and prosecution is real. but i rather doubt the claim that the constitution protects against presidential dishonor or shame. justice ruth bader ginsburg may remark that an incumbent “has no consistency about him” and is a “faker.”[186] the speaker of the house may say that a president is trying to “shred the constitution”[187] or that he is “ethically unfit, intellectually unfit, curiosity wise unfit” for the presidency.[188] she may even say that when “you get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you.”[189] but neither the justice nor the speaker would have unconstitutionally stigmatized the chief executive. if appalling utterances made by high officials, whether true or not, are constitutionally permissible even though they will sap a president’s ability to lead, indictment or prosecution cannot be per se unconstitutional. of course, all are aware that presidents occasionally act in rather shameful ways. yet no one supposes that they have violated the constitution because their disgraceful acts and utterances made it more difficult for them to “act as the nation’s leader in the domestic and foreign spheres.”[190] much the same can be said about distraction. incumbents do not enjoy a constitutional right to be free from distractions. the supreme court confirmed as much in clinton v. jones.[191] the distraction that necessarily arises from being the subject of a civil complaint, one that is chock full of sordid allegations, is not constitutionally suspect, much less forbidden.[192] plaintiffs can sue the president for sexual harassment, deprivation of constitutional rights, conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, defamation, and, presumably, a host of other civil wrongs.[193] while president, donald trump was the subject of many private suits, including suits alleging defamation, sexual assault, and receipt of foreign emoluments.[194] if that level of disruption does not generate immunities, it is hard to see why prosecution is always unconstitutional merely because it too will distract. incapacitation is a genuine and weightier concern. i take incapacitation to mean that the incumbent cannot function or serve as president. further, i understand the claim to be that the constitution implicitly prohibits federal and state institutions from disabling the incumbent. it forbids such actions because presidential incapacitation effectively neutralizes the executive branch. it brings the most energetic branch, “the active principle in all governments,”[195] to a dead stop. yet our constitution supplies a complete solution to incapacitation, one not requiring us to conjure up an implied, all encompassing criminal immunity. the original framers (and subsequent ones) knew the presidency was a truly special institution. it was so exceptional that they provided unique rules to ensure continuity in the office: “in case of removal of the president from office, or his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the vice president.”[196] if the president cannot perform the office due to “inability,” the vice president shall be president (the office transfers).[197] the twenty fifth amendment created a concrete mechanism for judging incapacity, whereby the vice president and the cabinet, acting together, may declare a president disabled.[198] that amendment also clarified that when the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the vice president is but the “acting president.”[199] in contrast, the other two branches lack rules of automatic succession upon death, removal, resignation, or inability.[200] they are less special, at least in this respect. for our purposes, the essential point is that if a sitting president cannot serve because she is being prosecuted or, worse yet, being punished, the vice president takes over. more specifically, whenever the “president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the vice president takes over as acting president. to be sure, nothing in the text signifies that prosecution and incarceration necessarily incapacitates a presidency. but, of course, the constitution never precisely specifies what constitutes inability. there is no catalog of conditions that limit the reach of the phrase “unable to discharge” the office, most likely because the framers of the original constitution and the twenty fifth amendment wished to cover a host of situations without specifying each and every one. furthermore, because the constitution never identifies conditions that are not disabling, it never declares that prosecution and incarceration are irrelevant for purposes of determining inability. hence, if every indictment, prosecution, or punishment is as debilitating as advocates of immunity are apt to claim, then such acts render presidents unable to discharge their duties.[201] the vice president, serving as acting president, satisfies all the desiderata that advocates of presidential immunity identify. the acting president can provide the attention that a president may be unable to supply while under the shadow of prosecution or punishment. the acting president is typically elected in a national process and can be said to have a national constituency.[202] and, finally, the acting president is also unique in that when the vice president serves as “acting president,” he unilaterally directs an entire branch. the unitary executive lives on with the vice president enjoying command and control. without any need for extraordinary, sweeping, and doubtful immunities, the executive already has exactly what justice story demanded: continuity. no matter the criminal law burdens placed on a sitting president, the executive continues uninterrupted, always having “the power to perform [its functions], without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever.”[203] in other words, the framers had the foresight to provide a solution to the problems that amar, kalt, and the olc rightly identify.[204] because the difficulties they catalog are wholly solved by two constitutional provisions, their arguments for implied immunity lose their efficacy. if you think the incumbent is unique, rather than the office, then you have reason to shield him or her. of course, the constitution contains no express rule protecting any particular incumbent. if, however, you insist that the office is unique, the constitution creates a fail safe to ensure continuity of executive government. the office remains filled, unique, national, and all consuming even if the actual president is in a courtroom facing a criminal trial. the office’s powers and duties endure, and certain exercises of those powers by the acting president can yield earth shattering consequences or serve to save the constitution. hence, the executive branch will never sleep, even if the president faces prosecution or, worse yet, is in jail as a result of a criminal conviction. the olc sought to parry the provisions’ clarifying power by saying that impeachment was the means of adjudicating presidential wrongdoing and by claiming that the twenty fifth amendment “should not be understood sub silentio to withdraw a previously established immunity and authorize the imprisonment of a sitting president.”[205] but this claim misunderstands the contours of the constitution. again, the impeachment provisions in no way decree that sitting officers cannot be prosecuted or punished while in office. we have known this for centuries, ever since the first congress provided that sitting officers could be prosecuted. furthermore, the original constitution (and not merely the twenty fifth amendment) had a provision for presidential “inability,”[206] and, hence, supplied the means for ensuring the focus and continuity in the executive that the olc believes is crucial. finally, to say that the constitution “previously established [an] immunity” for the incumbent that the twenty fifth amendment could not implicitly withdraw is to assume the conclusion. the very question in dispute is whether the original constitution granted the president a unique immunity from prosecution and punishment. the olc cannot dogmatically insist that the succession provisions have no bearing on the question of immunity. after all, they defeat the functional claim that without criminal immunity the executive will be hamstrung. absent that claim, the argument for presidential immunity is markedly weaker. indeed, champions of immunity have long had difficulty making sense of presidential inability in the context of incarceration, making claims that abound in contradictions. consider robert bork’s argument. bork served as solicitor general during the nixon administration and argued that though a sitting vice president could be prosecuted, a sitting president could not.[207] in a book reflecting upon his watergate years, bork said this: if a president could be indicted and forced to stand trial before being impeached and convicted, he would not officially be incapacitated to the point where the twenty fifth amendment would apply, but he nevertheless would be effectively removed from heading the executive branch, impermissibly undermining its capacity to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.[208] bork went on to ridicule a draft olc memo that suggested an incarcerated president might be able to “run the executive branch from his jail cell,” asserting that it was so “preposterous” that he insisted they remove it.[209] in saying all this, bork controverted himself. if, as bork argued, a president is “effectively removed” whenever he is forced to defend himself in a criminal trial, then he is likewise “officially incapacitated.” likewise, if a president cannot run his branch from “his jail cell,” as bork insists, the incumbent is “officially incapacitated.” given bork’s descriptions of the consequences of trial and incarceration, the constitution’s inability provisions would fully apply. like the olc, bork could not fathom that the rules for an acting president wholly solve the evils he identified and make his inferences of sweeping presidential immunity wholly unnecessary. in sum, considerations of constitutional structure that might seem to suggest the pressing necessity of inferring criminal immunities utterly lose their force once we recognize that such contrived immunities are superfluous. all that we need from the executive unity, decisiveness, energy can come from the unitary executive under the vigorous leadership of the acting president. the constitution established a complete solution to the legitimate concerns of justice story, professors amar and kalt, and the olc. the conventional wisdom that a president can be investigated and branded a criminal but cannot be arrested, prosecuted, or punished has a certain simplicity that makes it easy to adopt and implement. it blends clarity with a protective sweep. administrability is a useful trait. but some of the factors that supposedly favor immunity diversion, ignominy, and incapacitation do not apply with equal force to each stage of the criminal process. there are meaningful differences that distinguish indictment, trial, and punishment. likewise, there are significant distinctions between jailable offenses and lesser crimes. in asserting that some of the arguments against presidential amenability to the criminal law are less persuasive as applied to particular phases, i set aside my principal claim that the presidency utterly lacks constitutional privileges and immunities concerning the application of the criminal law. to my knowledge, no one argues that federal and state law enforcement officials are constitutionally barred from investigating the president or from publicly announcing their view that the incumbent has committed crimes. in part, the absence of such argumentation may reflect the water that has cascaded under the bridge. over the past half century, we have had criminal investigations of richard nixon, bill clinton, and donald trump. i do not believe that anyone associated with the first two presidents claimed that the constitution implicitly barred the criminal investigation of an incumbent.[210] such a claim becomes harder to make as the investigations pile up. moreover, in the case of bill clinton, kenneth starr concluded (albeit in a secret report to the house) that the president had committed obstruction of justice and perjury.[211] the house’s speedy public release of the report perhaps indicated that representatives did not believe that something in the constitution barred official accusations of serious criminal wrongdoing.[212] more recently, attorney general bill barr signaled that no department of justice policy prohibited a statement about presidential lawbreaking.[213] hence, robert mueller was free to brand president trump a criminal even if he could not indict or prosecute him. now investigation and informal accusation might incapacitate especially sensitive presidents who cannot bear the glare of manic speculation and denunciation. but in the main, stinging charges will not paralyze presidents. politics “ain’t bean bag” but is rather a blood sport.[214] most presidents can withstand ferocious scrutiny, unfair insinuations, and worse. diversion and ignominy pose more serious issues. presidents publicly investigated and accused will certainly divert their gaze from their public duties. they may fret about their public standing. their power and influence rest somewhat on their reputation, and an investigation and accusation will normally diminish that standing, at least to some extent. further, incumbents will be anxious about the aftermath of an investigation: namely, the possibility of impeachment and criminal prosecution. finally, investigations and accusations will envelop the incumbent in a cloud of infamy. as far as we know, every recent investigation of an incumbent was disclosed to the world, thus making them undeniable spectacles and generating all sorts of fevered conjecture. now the possible distraction and disrepute that come from an impeachment investigation are implied in the constitutional scheme. but the diversion and opprobrium that come from a criminal investigation that might yield a future prosecution may not be. concerning indictments, the olc has argued that distraction and ignominy are factors against the constitutionality of indictment.[215] yet if the olc is right, then one must at least consider whether the diversion and ignominy that come from a public criminal investigation and public accusation should bar investigations and accusations made outside the impeachment context. perhaps official investigations and accusations are constitutional only in the context of impeachment, lest the president be diverted and tarred by rumors, leaks, and public charges of criminality. for instance, if a state investigator were to probe whether the president violated some state law, one might argue that if the alleged violation is not an impeachable offense, then the state inquiry ought to be halted in its tracks. it distracts the president and diminishes his public standing. i do not endorse the idea that the constitution bars non impeachment investigations and accusations. far from it. my only point is that many of the considerations that led the olc (and scholars) to conclude a president cannot be indicted apply, at least to some extent, to earlier stages in the criminal process. indeed, it may be that proponents of presidential immunity would have come to a different conclusion about whether presidents can be investigated and accused of a crime had it considered the matter in the 1950s or 1960s, i.e., before watergate and all that has come since. the supposed constitutional bar on indicting a president suffers from a different problem  one pushing in the opposite direction. in 1973, the olc said: given the realities of modern politics and mass media, and the delicacy of the political relationships which surround the presidency both foreign and domestic, there would be a russian roulette aspect to the course of indicting the president but postponing the trial, hoping in the meantime that the power to govern could survive.[216] such a course would jeopardize “the power to govern, and the symbolism on which so much of his real authority rests.”[217] in making these claims, the olc overshoots its mark and conflates matters. at the outset, an indictment does not burden the president’s legal “power to govern” as the chief executive. even after a mortifying indictment, he has the same constitutional powers. he can continue to pardon, veto bills, appoint to office, command the military, and supervise the bureaucracy. further, while an incumbent is certainly a practical symbol of the federal government, the constitution does not exactly render the president a symbol of the united states. in 1789, congress quickly readopted an existing seal (a symbol), one that lacked the president’s likeness.[218] in any event, as alluded to earlier, this argument about symbolism wrongfully imbues a perceived and popular symbol with constitutional immunities. the fact that the incumbent comes to mind when many people contemplate the government of the united states is no argument for reading the constitution as if it conveyed implied immunities. more importantly, any diminution of a capacity to persuade, either domestically or internationally, does not matter. a reduced ability to prevail in congress, or make a treaty, is of no constitutional moment. so, while a president’s “real authority” (meaning practical influence and power) is certainly a function of his reputation, it is not unconstitutional to diminish the practical authority attributable to his ability to sway others. presidents are entitled to exercise their constitutional authority, but not to a world that leaves their practical influence undiminished, much less to a world that maximizes their practical authority. critics of george washington did not violate the constitution when they denounced him as an “embryo caesar” and a “king george iv.”[219] likewise, a prosecutor who procures a grand jury indictment has not thereby breached the constitution. the olc must surely know this. after all, if public investigations and accusations are permissible means through which to cast a cloud on the incumbent, divert her, and diminish her “real authority,” then one must question what incremental obloquy and distraction arises from an indictment. from the general public’s perspective, i believe no additional shame arises from indictment. if the president is publicly investigated and accused by a prosecutor, the damage is done. from the vantage of informed observers, a grand jury indictment seems somewhat inconsequential. knowledgeable members of the public appreciate what chief judge sol wachtler of the new york court of appeals knew: a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich” at the behest of a skilled prosecutor.[220] so, educated observers are unlikely to be moved by the distinct act of indictment. perhaps that is why some scholars, like laurence tribe and walter dellinger, believe that it is constitutionally permissible for a grand jury to indict a president.[221] professor tribe believes that, as a practical matter, a vice president who succeeds a president would find it harder to pardon someone who was indicted while in office.[222] professor dellinger argues that if you can name a president as an unindicted co conspirator, as was true of richard nixon, there is no reason why you cannot indict the incumbent.[223] the incremental dishonor is negligible. dellinger further observes that an indictment would preclude the elapse of the typical five year statute of limitations for federal crimes. in other words, without an indictment (or a waiver), the statute of limitations might run and thereby prevent a prosecution.[224] dellinger’s second point is powerful. the olc admits that without a statutory modification by congress and states, statutes of limitation might expire. this makes delay in criminal adjudication particularly awkward because a delay will often render prosecution impossible. because this is a flaw in the argument for delayed prosecution, amar and kalt have a solution: toll the statutes of limitations.[225] but this makes immunity more palatable at the cost of making the claim of immunity more implausible. we must not only infer an immunity but also discover a constitutional modification of all statutes of limitations  federal and state. the more intricate and detailed an implied structural feature, the less conceivable it will appear. a rule of implied immunity, coupled with implied tolling, is sufficiently complex that we should be dubious. certainly, none of those early senators who treated the presidency as sacred and above all ordinary process simultaneously claimed that the constitution implicitly tolled statutes of limitations. in sum, the olc’s position that indictment constitutes a red line is rather puzzling. given the practical need to indict the need to meet statutes of limitations and the seeming lack of any additional distraction and obloquy, i see no sound reason to prohibit grand jury indictments. we need not eschew prosecution merely because we dread arrest. although arrest is often part of the criminal process, it is not requisite for a trial. as my colleague rachel harmon has observed, a criminal summons is sufficient to exercise jurisdiction over an accused.[226] hence, if a prosecutor believes that a sitting president ought to be tried, she can bypass arrest and request a court to issue a summons. of course, as argued earlier, in some cases, an arrest may seem indispensably necessary. we have had many presidents dedicated to the rule of law. but a system is made in anticipation of saints and scoundrels. the group of enterprising and ambitious men and women likely to become president contains a subset, however small, who yearn for power and lust to maintain it. when senator maclay hypothesized daily presidential homicides, john adams apparently asserted that the crowned heads of europe never committed murder. to which, maclay drolly responded: “very true, in the retail way, charles ix of france excepted. they generally do these things on a great scale.”[227] if a president is on a crime spree, causing alarm and mayhem, then incarceration pending trial (either criminal or impeachment) should be welcomed rather than dreaded. that raises the question: does the constitution forbid the arrest of a president? we have seen that neither officer west nor president grant assumed as much. nonetheless, the argument against arrest is that the incumbent will have a difficult time serving as president while under arrest. of course, this is true. yet does that make arrest per se unconstitutional? the answer is not obvious. if the president is arrested and detained for but a few hours, one may wonder whether something is constitutionally amiss. after all, a president forced to testify in a civil or criminal case is unable to attend to his official duties while testifying. yet i doubt whether anyone would say that the president is truly incapacitated during such a period. consider, for a moment, some practices of early presidents. president washington took two months long tours of the north and south.[228] while away in the south, the “cabinet officers essentially ran the government.”[229] they could, however, recall him “if any serious and important cases” required his “personal” attention.[230] during this tour, the cabinet borrowed funds overseas, sent commissioners to tribes, and protested to the british about arms supplies.[231] at least these tours constituted official business washington gathered information about, among other things, political sentiments. he could not say the same for the more than a year (estimated to be 434 days) he spent at mt. vernon, hundreds of miles away from the capital.[232] john adams imitated his predecessor, at least in this respect. adams spent much of his presidency in quincy, massachusetts.[233] during both presidents’ sojourns, neither one (nor anyone else) invoked the “inability” provision of article ii. during the trial of aaron burr, chief justice john marshall said that the demands of the presidency were “not unremitting.”[234] perhaps he had in mind adams and his trips to quincy. if president adams could escape and take something of a respite from the press of executive business, then it was facetious to say that a president was too busy to comply with a subpoena for letters.[235] though thomas jefferson complained that judges might “bandy him from pillar to post,”[236] he too must have known that his attention flagged when he left the capital. he denied it, of course, taking umbrage at his cousin’s remark: if in claiming that the president’s work was “not unremitting,” marshall “alludes to our [jefferson’s] annual retirement from the seat of government, . . . he should be told that . . . the public business . . . goes on as unremittingly there, as if we were at the seat of government.”[237] this claim has as much truth as a teenager’s insistence that she does homework as well (nay better!) while watching videos of cute puppies. today, technology enables incumbents to more faithfully execute their office while outside the capital, either from america’s most remote corners or in far off lands. with internet access and phone calls, the entire apparatus of the executive branch can accompany the president wherever she might go or find herself. for instance, the olc has concluded that bills can be presented and returned electronically while the president is overseas or otherwise.[238] if the period of detention is particularly short or if the jailor grants internet and phone access, a modern incumbent’s ability to serve as chief executive would be far more meaningful than washington’s capacity to serve as he journeyed through the deep south. while one “incapacity” is involuntary and the other voluntary, that distinction seems irrelevant. the question is whether the constitution tolerates some disruption of a president. and the answer seems yes, in three respects. first, even if prolonged incapacitation of the executive is unconstitutional, brief periods of incapacitation might not violate article ii. second, with modern technology, incarceration might not be as incapacitating as some suppose. third, as i have discussed at great length, the complete incapacitation of a president is not unconstitutional given the provisions that permit the vice president to serve as acting president. learned hand once said that a civil lawsuit should be “dread[ed] . . . beyond almost anything else short of sickness and death.”[239] criminal trials generally will be more engrossing and onerous and therefore they exceed illness even if they do not quite approach death. the olc has argued that “criminal litigation uniquely requires the president’s personal time and energy, and will inevitably entail a considerable . . . degree of mental preoccupation.”[240] this intuition makes sense because the opprobrium from a criminal conviction is generally worse than the disgrace that would come from losing a civil case. the greater mental fixation on a criminal trial is also a reflection of possible consequences, like jail time or worse. but these general observations are not universally true. within the category of criminal prosecutions, some will distract more than others. a president who barrels down constitution avenue in a porsche 911 and is charged with reckless driving may not be much bothered, as the grant encounter with officer west suggests. a president charged with homicide, however, likely will be distracted by the courtroom drama and its lead up. and some presidents, like the last one, have a preternatural ability to seem undisturbed in the face of numerous suits. relatedly, some adverse civil judgments are far more damaging and damning than certain criminal convictions. a conviction for criminal tax evasion pales beside a verdict for a plaintiff in a civil wrongful death suit. a guilty verdict in a perjury trial does not hold a candle to an award of damages to a sexual assault victim. concerning such civil actions, the president’s attention often will be focused like a laser beam. my point is that because we tolerate all manner of distraction and reputational damage from civil suits and judgments, treating criminal prosecutions as per se unconstitutional is neither necessary nor sufficient  at least if our concern is distraction. delaying prosecution also may warp the outcomes of any eventual criminal trials, in the sense that delay may “make it more difficult for the ultimate prosecution to succeed.”[241] the reason for permitting criminal investigations and civil adjudications to proceed while the president is in office the sensible fear that the passage of time will erode memories and disintegrate evidence applies equally to the delay of criminal trials. a trial will be fairer and more accurate if the accused is tried soon after the alleged crime, a consideration that disfavors the claim that presidents should be immune for as much as ten years. another way of putting the point is that the longer we delay a criminal trial, sometimes for almost a decade, the more we create the possibility that the guilty may escape punishment and the innocent may, perhaps, be punished due to faulty memories or decaying evidence. if protracted incarceration is particularly problematic because it effectively removes the incumbent from office, then the punishment phase marks the most powerful context for concluding that the constitution supplies some form of immunity. but even here, the case is far from airtight. a guilty verdict does not immediately, or invariably, require incarceration. first, one could delay sentencing. while the constitution requires a speedy trial, there does not appear to be a right to swift sentencing.[242] so, sentencing might be postponed after conviction. perhaps a sentence could be set only after the incumbent has left office. second, even after sentencing one could delay its actual imposition. if scholars and judges are particularly concerned about incarceration (or worse), those particular punishments can be delayed without necessarily postponing the trial of the offense. or, put another way, the constitution can be read to permit trials (and all that precedes them) but simultaneously bar any serious punishment of an incumbent until he or she is no longer in office. third, not all guilty verdicts yield imprisonment. the federal criminal code, title 18, contains some fine only crimes.[243] the state codes have similar provisions. for instance, virginia has misdemeanor offenses that are fine only.[244] again, if incarceration alone poses unique constitutional difficulties, then inflicting criminal fines will not be unconstitutional. once we understand that jail time is not an immediate or necessary concomitant of a guilty verdict (or a plea), we can better see that criminal adjudication is not per se problematic. or at least it is not if the particular concern is presidential incapacitation due to imprisonment. in drawing distinctions across the phases of the criminal process, i do not mean to detract from my general assertion that the constitution imposes no bar to indicting, prosecuting, or punishing a president. rather, this discussion merely seeks to demonstrate that many of the concerns raised by the olc are overblown and, further, that the olc systematically downplays similarities with civil adjudication. is an indictment necessarily more distracting and damaging than a prolonged criminal investigation and an official declaration of guilt? i do not believe so. are criminal trials uniquely engrossing and, therefore, diverting? again, no. finally, is criminal punishment more invariably incapacitating than the imposition of a civil fine or the award of damages? of course not. now the olc would respond by insisting that because the criminal process is generally more distracting, frightening, and incapacitating, we ought to discover within the constitution a general rule of immunity and disdain a more fine tuned, contextually sensitive approach. the olc said this in 2000, citing clinton v. jones: “a categorical rule against indictment or criminal prosecution is most consistent with the constitutional structure, rather than a doctrinal test that would require the court to assess whether a particular criminal proceeding is likely to impose serious burdens upon the president.”[245] the desire for a categorical rule can take us in one of two directions: full immunity or full amenability. such a distinction hardly uniquely favors olc’s conclusion. moreover, in conceding the constitutionality of intrusive investigations and distracting official accusations of guilt, the olc has adopted a more contextual approach. why stop there? why not conduct a more sensitive consideration of whether indictment or trial is truly so damaging, especially in light of the weighty interests furthered by both? finally, clinton v. jones must be laid alongside united states v. nixon.[246] in nixon, the court approached a question executive privilege in a highly nuanced way and eschewed categorical rules. the court sanctified executive privilege in a general way before concluding it could be overcome in the context of a grand jury proceeding. not content with that distinction, the court also noted that the case did not involve national security materials, congress, or a civil proceeding.[247] the court thereby invited lawyers and lower courts to draw ever more fine distinctions about executive privilege across a variety of contexts. though my principal claim is that presidents lack immunity from prosecution and punishment, i would be content if this discussion triggers a reappraisal of the olc’s blanket approach. scholars, lawyers, and judges ought to reevaluate whether an absolute bar on indictments serves any real purpose. likewise, they ought to reconsider the supposedly deleterious effects of prosecution and consider them alongside the undoubted benefits of a speedy, more contemporaneous trial. finally, one must admit that sentencing, by itself, is never incapacitating and that criminal punishment need not be. in 2000, the olc put weight on the countrywide, popular election of presidents. presidents are made via the “‘only national election’”[248] and “elected by the people as a whole.”[249] to permit the prosecution of an incumbent “would confer upon a jury of twelve the power, in effect, to overturn [a] national election.”[250] while the vice president would take over, the public wants the president at the “helm,” not an acting president.[251] the better route is impeachment because the entire nation is likewise represented in congress.[252] the claim has an appealing symmetry. no one doubts that american presidents are chosen in a coast to coast contest. nonetheless, the olc’s efforts to transform a nationwide imprimatur into a presidential shield overlook certain facts and overplay others. first, not all presidents are elected in a nationwide election. outside of a michigan district, no one elected gerald ford.[253] more importantly, no one elected ford to serve as president, much less vice president. richard nixon selected him in the wake of the resignation of spiro agnew.[254] yet ford would have benefitted from the executive protection that presidential immunizers press upon us. second, not all of our presidents have received a majority of the popular vote. these presidents cannot be said to have been elected by the people, at least in the colloquial sense. since the olc wrote in 2000, both george w. bush and donald j. trump became president without securing a majority of the national vote.[255] these two candidates won enough a majority of the presidential electors, something necessary and sufficient to become president.[256] do such presidents lack immunity because they do not have the backing of a popular majority? does constitutional immunity turn on the popular vote? third, the voters, and their expectations, are something of a side issue. of course, the electors (and the voting public) are focused on the presidential contestants and far less concerned about the abilities, stances, and character of the vice presidential candidates. but even though voters and electors focus on presidential candidates and treat vice presidential aspirants mostly as an afterthought, both voters and electors cast their ballots against a constitutional backdrop. if the constitution provides that the vice president takes over when the president is unable to discharge her duties, then the people should know that the vice president will be the legitimate “acting president” when the actual president is deemed incapacitated. so, while voters may prefer the actual president, the acting president must sometimes suffice when it comes to the presidency. voters may not prefer an acting president spiro agnew, dan quayle, or al gore, but that is what they will get if the president is “unable to discharge” the office to which she was elected, including the situation where she is prosecuted or imprisoned. most fundamentally, nothing in the constitution requires the familiar popular contest.[257] the system we have is an artifact of independent decisions made by state legislatures to have their state electors selected by popular vote rather than by another process.[258] it is a mistake to imbue discretionary (if extremely durable) state legislative preferences with constitutional consequences for the presidency. that is to say, presidents should not be regarded as having criminal immunities merely because of choices made by the several states. the powers and privileges of presidents do not turn on the vagaries of state legislative choices. with equal justification, one might insist that impeachment cannot serve as the sole means of adjudicating the criminal culpability of presidents because, after all, no president has ever been removed from office for her alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. this would be to imbue our current predicament the feebleness of the impeachment mechanism as applied to presidents with portentous constitutional consequences. that too would be a mistake. i certainly do not believe that because impeaching a sitting president seems utterly futile, presidents must be amenable to the criminal process as a second best substitute. my point is that presidents are amenable to prosecution and punishment without regard to whether states use popular elections to select their presidential electors or whether impeachment stands as a viable means of ousting chief executives. however convincing the case that presidents lack criminal immunities, some may be particularly unnerved by the prospect of state prosecution. some may suppose that there must be immunity from at least state criminal process, lest provincial prosecutors harass our federal chief executives. indeed, mcculloch v. maryland[259] suggested that while the union can regulate states, a state cannot control the union: “the difference is that which always exists, and always must exist, between the action of the whole on a part, and the action of a part on the whole . . . .”[260] yet in truth, mcculloch never established any such principle.[261] the parts continue to have the means of hampering the whole, at least in some respects. as noted earlier, two states indicted a vice president, causing him to flee. aaron burr never intimated that his status as a federal officer precluded any state prosecution. in 1973, the olc admitted that sitting vice presidents could be prosecuted by federal or state officers, citing burr’s example.[262] the same was true for all the other high officers of the united states, including departmental secretaries, senators, representatives, and judges. the one exception was the president, said the olc.[263] one aspect of the case for a presidential exception rests on intuition: if we permitted state prosecution, we might witness vindictive or partisan prosecutions. but the possibility of an abuse of power is no powerful argument against the power’s existence because all powers may be misused. as justice story pointed out long ago, “it is always a doubtful course, to argue against the use or existence of a power, from the possibility of its abuse.”[264] even were we to ignore this sound advice, the sheer absence of any attempt to prosecute presidents, what to speak of partisan persecutions, perhaps gives the lie to the fear. despite centuries of partisan heat directed at presidents, each of whom occupied the most prominent office in the land, and many of whom took the most public and controversial acts, no state or local prosecutor has attempted to prosecute them. even abraham lincoln never faced state charges despite his unprecedented and controversial wartime acts. the supreme court’s case from the 2019 term perhaps confirms a reluctance to draw federalism distinctions. new york has been investigating donald trump’s finances, with an eye to potential bank and insurance fraud. though trump sought to quash a subpoena for his financial records, the court rejected the claim.[265] the court concluded that a sitting president may assert the normal state law defenses to an investigation and subpoena.[266] his unique position as head of the federal executive branch seems to matter but little. if that was true of state grand jury subpoenas, the court might likewise conclude that state criminal proceedings, of whatever sort, are not uniquely troubling. in an appropriate case, the justices might yet conclude that state officials can do whatever federal prosecutors and courts may do. moreover, as discussed in part iii, there is a perfectly satisfactory solution to the specter of state prosecution. besides the ability to shift into federal court some state criminal prosecutions of federal officers,[267] congress can solve the menace of state persecution of presidents. if representatives and senators are sufficiently fearful of what may materialize when state prosecutors pursue presidents, congress can legislate all the necessary protections against state criminal process and prosecutions. having said all this, i admit that different intuitions come into play when the parts do something that affects, and potentially disturbs, the whole. accordingly, some may be convinced that while the constitution does not establish a blanket immunity from prosecution and punishment, the case for immunity from state prosecution is more persuasive. i would regard that stance, one favoring a limited immunity from state criminal process only, as a welcome change from the tendency to conjure up comprehensive criminal protections for presidents. * * * traditional tools of constitutional interpretation give little reason to suppose that the constitution grants immunity from prosecution and punishment. hence, the claim made over the past fifty years by executive officials that presidents are uniquely immune from criminal process, prosecution, and punishment has little grounding. before the constitution’s ratification, no one said that it granted the presidency special immunities, temporary or otherwise. moreover, to my knowledge, no early president claimed such protections. and the constitution’s text contains nary a hint that our presidents have special criminal immunities of whatever sort. though the original presidency was unique and enjoyed considerable powers, it did not come freighted with a far reaching, implicit immunity from criminal prosecutions and penalties. if we wish to credit the claim that the president cannot be prosecuted or punished, the best argument perhaps rests upon changed conceptions about the presidency’s place in american life upon the notion of our imperial, living presidency. the founders’ energetic executive has become positively frenetic. those who favor some, or all, of what the modern presidency has become a war declarer, a lawmaker, and a tribune of the people may suppose that whatever meager dispensations the original presidency possessed, far greater shields are the needs of the hour. they may conceive that with vaster powers and responsibilities must come grander privileges and immunities. but they should not imagine that the original constitution commanded any of that. some will regard my interpretation of the constitution as implausible, even alarming. prosecuting a president may seem a horrific prospect; jailing a sitting president may seem bonkers. some will prophesize that once we declare that our presidents lack criminal immunity, parochial and partisan prosecutors will emerge from the woodwork to attack our presidents. it will be open season on our pitiable presidents. fortunately, congress can fully address such apprehension and alarm. nothing precludes congress from creating immunities the constitution itself never established. an existing example of such a statute would be the servicemembers civil relief act, an act that creates various civil dispensations for members of the armed forces.[268] such laws have early antecedents.[269] congress has a range of options. for instance, it might bar indictments because legislators conclude that they unduly tar the president and hobble her ability to function. perhaps congress might go further and bar that which the olc concedes is constitutional: namely, investigation and (informal) official accusation of a sitting president. if congress is concerned about maximizing the “real authority” of the president “to govern,”[270] a bar on official investigations would do more to preserve that authority. it would better safeguard an undoubted symbol of the united states. as far as arrest goes, congress could regulate that as well, reserving it for the most heinous offenses, state and federal. this would bar a situation where an officer west arrests a president for a minor offense. or congress might decide that arrest is altogether forbidden. since i believe that arrest is sometimes appropriate, i would disagree with the policy choice even as i conclude that congress can make it. another option consists of adopting that which the olc believes is already part of the constitution. in particular, congress could grant an immunity from federal and state indictment and prosecution  one that lasts until presidents leave office. congress might simultaneously toll all existing statutes of limitations. this would ensure that presidents do not escape punishment merely because the statutes of limitation have run while they enjoyed a statutory immunity from indictment and prosecution. congress could enact more targeted immunities. it could permit some prosecutions, say for non jailable offenses, but bar prosecutions that might yield jail time. this would blend partial presidential amenability with a degree of immunity. some legislators may conclude that we have nothing to fear from certain forms of criminal accountability; grant’s implicit admission of guilt certainly suggests as much. relatedly, if legislators believe that adjudication of guilt is necessary because adjudication deters, or because of fears that evidence will scatter and memories dissipate, then they can grant relevant protections. in particular, congress can delay sentencing or punishment. indeed, members might believe that the impeachment process will benefit from an earlier criminal trial, especially because representatives and senators may become more fully aware of presidential wrongdoing. if legislators are deeply troubled about the possibility of unhealthy recriminations after a president leaves office and hope to avoid a cycle of retaliatory prosecutions, they may wish to bar successor administrations from prosecuting (or persecuting) former chief magistrates. this would grant former presidents a far reaching immunity, one designed to prevent vengeful persecution. it would also make the prospect of stepping down from office less worrisome because incumbents would not cling to office in a bid to avoid prosecution and punishment.[271] finally, if the specter of provincialism is uniquely troubling, congress may bar attempts of the parts to burden or harass an instrument of the whole. by law, it could dictate that states can never indict or prosecute presidents for their official or private acts. such a federal statute might even preclude state prosecution of former presidents. the range of combinations is limitless. any such federal statutes would be constitutional under the necessary and proper clause insofar as congress concludes that statutory privileges, immunities, and exceptions are advantageous in safeguarding and implementing presidential and other constitutional powers. statutory solutions are superior. as compared to a constitutionally grounded immunity, statutes are easier to enact and repeal. if it subsequently appears that the genuine problem is not persecution of our presidents but their perceived criminality while in office, congress can inter its statutory shields. alternatively, if a minor tweak is needed here or there, congress can readily fine tune its law, broadening it in one area and contracting it in another. the more general point that should not be lost is that the existence of some problem does not require us to cast about for a constitutional solution. other than a presidential salary, congress does not have to fund the executive branch,[272] and, without funds, that branch would wither and die. but that reality does not warrant a conclusion that the presidency has an implied constitutional right to funds sufficient to run the executive branch. the same is true for the courts. they too have guaranteed salaries,[273] and they too lack a guaranteed budget for their branch. similarly, the perception that an incumbent president’s amenability to arrest, conviction, and punishment is a profound problem to be solved does not justify the leap that presidents enjoy constitutional immunity from all three. if people are unsatisfied (or unimpressed) with the constitution’s express solution for incapacitation the acting president takes over[274] congress may solve the perceived problem. judge robert bork, writing of his experience arguing for executive immunity, made something of an admission against interest: “[w]e had to create the law out of policy and the structure of the government.”[275] that has ever been a problem in this area. advocates of presidential immunity, including originalists like bork, identify a perceived problem presidential amenability to the criminal law and then search for a constitutional solution.[276] in the process, they “create” constitutional law, relying on deeply felt intuitions. there are three difficulties with this understandable impulse. first, there is an express constitutional provision that adequately handles the problem of a president paralyzed by concern about criminal liability or incapacitated because she finds herself in jail: the vice president serves as the acting president.[277] this meets the need for an executive branch directed by one powerful person in whom the constitution vests “the [e]xecutive power”[278] and a host of fundamental duties. second, congress can solve any problems that the constitution leaves unaddressed. if there is a consensus that the president should not be distracted or incapacitated by the criminal process, congress can enact laws that bar some or all prosecutions and punishments of a sitting president. again, there is no need to infer a sweeping constitutional immunity. third, it is wrong to refashion constitutional law based on shifting perceptions. today we may believe that our honorable presidents must have immunity; tomorrow, we may conclude that our rogue executives should be immediately prosecuted. such transient attitudes, ones that too often track perceptions of the current incumbent, are no way to read the constitution. in this case, the well intentioned hope of some that presidents should carry out their great constitutional functions without harassing prosecutions and incapacitating punishments has led to the belated discovery of a criminal immunity never intended or granted. we should resist the temptation to allow this deep faith in the perfection of the constitution[279] that it solves every one of the problems we perceive or invent to trump constitutional text, structure, and history. although presidents are exceptional actors on the constitutional stage and in the life of the nation, they do not have truly exceptional, if tacit, criminal shields. great powers do not always come with great immunities. though my claims here do not logically conflict with my previous assertion about self pardons, some clarifying points are requisite and helpful. first, any self pardon would bar federal prosecution of the relevant offenses, even after the president left office. second, some presidents will choose not to pardon themselves because any such pardon will seem an admission of guilt. in other words, if the president is innocent, why the need for a self pardon? third, some presidents may prefer a trial because it puts their claims of innocence to the test and (hopefully) demonstrates that they actually are innocent. some may want their day in court. fourth, self pardons may never bar prosecution for state offenses, for the pardon clause does not extend to state offenses. this means that presidents have absolutely no power over a subset of potential prosecutions. lastly, if forced to choose between my assertion about self pardons and my detailed arguments for the lack of immunity from federal prosecution, i am more confident of the arguments i make here. ↑ 2, https://‌chroniclingamerica.loc.gov‌/lccn‌/sn83045462‌/1908 09 27‌/ed 1‌/seq 46‌/ [https://perma.cc/ qec3 ccj4] [hereinafter sunday star]. ↑ download pdf privacy policy 2025 © texas law review
trump administration the constitution and u.s. law have clear answers for only some of the questions raised by the criminal conviction of a major presidential candidate. by maggie astor not since eugene v. debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the united states experienced what is now happening: a prominent candidate with felony convictions running for president. and never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning. a manhattan jury convicted former president donald j. trump in may of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star. he has been charged with dozens of other felonies across three additional cases: two federal and one in georgia. for now, he faces no formal campaign restrictions, and he remains highly competitive in polls. but his sentencing on the new york convictions is approaching, on july 11, the other cases are still looming, and the constitution and u.s. law have clear answers for only some of the questions that have arisen and may still arise. others could bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges. here is what we know, and what we don’t know. this is the simplest question of the bunch. the answer is yes. the constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. they must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the united states for at least 14 years.

 editor's note: maggie astor is a new york times reporter covering live news and u.s. politics. she has also reported on climate, the coronavirus and disinformation. not since eugene v. debs campaigned from a prison cell more than a century ago has the united states experienced what might now happen: a prominent candidate with a felony conviction running for president. and never before has that candidate been someone with a real chance of winning. former president donald trump faces no campaign restrictions. though he has been charged with dozens of felonies across two cases, one federal and one in new york, verdicts are a long way off. and there are many uncertainties, including whether the proceedings will hinder trump’s campaign in practical ways or begin to hurt him in the polls in a way they have not so far.