23-624 (2023) (certiorari before judgment) Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the United States Supreme Court held that the president is immune from civil suit for money damages in regard to official acts.

[7][8] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Mehta's opinion in a unanimous decision in December 2023,[9] stating that because his January 6 speech was a campaign event, he had acted "as office-seeker, not office-holder", and his actions did not fall within the "outer perimeter" standard for presidential immunity established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982).

[13] Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Trump in both the January 6 events and the handling of classified documents after his presidency.

[16][17][18] Defense attorney John Lauro argued that Trump's claims of electoral irregularities and voter fraud were "efforts to ensure election integrity", a responsibility of the president.

According to Lauro, Trump's attempts to validate his claims through the Department of Justice and the fake electors plot cannot be criminally prosecuted as "official duties" as president.

[28] On December 20, Trump's deadline to file a response with the Supreme Court, his lawyers complained that the special counsel was asking to "bypass ... ordinary procedures ...and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon".

"[35][36][37] The panel held further that former Presidents have no immunity for "allegedly violat[ing] generally applicable criminal laws" while in office, and specifically "to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power -- the recognition and implementation of election results".

[38] In response, Smith filed his own brief on February 14, 2024, urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump's request and citing the urgency of the pending 2024 presidential election.

[42] On April 8, special counsel Jack Smith filed a 66-page brief urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump's legal team argued for protecting presidential actions from prosecution to maintain authority, while Smith emphasized accountability for alleged crimes.

[46] One notable controversy which occurred during oral arguments was a response Trump attorney John Sauer made to Sonia Sotomayor which argued Presidents can, among other things, kill political rivals with immunity.

Smith attorneys argued the Fitzgerald precedent, which found presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil suits, does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions.

[5][59][53][60] Roberts wrote that other official acts, described as conduct taken in accordance with the president's "constitutional and statutory authority", are granted presumptive immunity but may be prosecuted, provided that prosecutors demonstrate that such charges would not threaten the power and function of the executive branch.

These precedents were used to support the finding that it was necessary to prevent the president from being constrained by undue threats of criminal prosecution in order to undertake the "bold and unhesitating action" required to effectively execute the duties of the office.

Sotomayor expressed concerns that a president would be immune from prosecution in a number of hypothetical situations, such as in ordering assassinations of political rivals and taking bribes for pardons.

[73] Charlie Savage of The New York Times wrote that Trump's immunity claim challenged "a hallmark of American-style democracy: its suspicion of concentrated power".

"[74] Writing for Politico, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori wrote that Trump's claims were "ridiculous", criticized the Supreme Court for not dismissing them immediately and thus potentially delaying Trump's criminal trials until after the 2024 presidential election, and criticized the court for "issuing transparently political rulings that are clearly aligned with the political priorities of the Republican Party".

[75] Following oral arguments on April 25, reactions to the Supreme Court seemingly entertaining some form of presidential immunity for Trump was overwhelmingly negative from a variety of historians, journalists, commentators, political scientists, and constitutional scholars.

[77][78][79] Other criticism was levied at court conservatives seemingly abandoning their professed belief in originalism that was used to overturn the right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) to create a basis of presidential immunity that does not exist in the Constitution.

[80] Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin responded to oral arguments by saying that "they should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters, because they're acting like a bunch of partisan operatives.

"[81] In an interview with Meet the Press, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, stated that he did not believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions committed in office.

Barr argued that "horror stories" surrounding the decision were irrelevant, as the president's official powers do not give him the authority to assassinate political rivals.

[87] Legal expert and CNN commentator Timothy C. Parlatore wrote in support of the ruling, arguing it would benefit both Republican and Democratic administrations, by protecting them from "overzealous or politically motivated prosecutions".

[90] Legal commentators David B. Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley of The Wall Street Journal also supported the decision, arguing that the ruling protected the presidency itself, by preserving the ability of the government to function.

[1][2][71] Former White House Counsel John Dean said Richard Nixon "would have survived" the Watergate scandal under the ruling "because the evidence against him was based on official acts the Supreme Court has deemed immune from prosecution.

[56] Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori wrote that the ruling is not based in either textualism or originalism, that it effectively "rewrote the Constitution", and "may go down as one of the most brazenly political decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.

[96] Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the decision "an assault on American democracy" and introduced articles of impeachment against justices Thomas and Alito.

"[103] Yale constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote an op-ed for The Atlantic titled "Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Court".

[134] On September 26, 2024, Jack Smith submitted a 165-page sealed brief in the federal prosecution for election obstruction, with Judge Chutkan approving a redacted version for public release the following week.