Trump v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 18:22, 1 July 2024 by Samantha Post (contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. United States
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: April 25, 2024
Decided: July 1, 2024
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett (except as to Part III–C)
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Amy Coney Barrett (in part)
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Trump v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Court on April 25, 2024.

The Court vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 6-3 ruling, holding that "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."[1] Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the doctrine of presidential immunity.
  • The questions presented: "I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the “‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959)).


    "II. Whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7, and principles of double jeopardy foreclose the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the U.S. Senate for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges."[2]

  • The outcome: In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for use of constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official acts, but not entitled to immunity for unofficial acts.

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • July 1, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • April 25, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • February 28, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • February 12, 2024: Former President Donald J. Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Background

    On August 1, 2023, former President Donald Trump (R) was indicted on four counts relating his alleged behavior after the 2020 Presidential election.[3] This indictment came from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of the January 6, 2021 attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump filed to dismiss this indictment, claiming that because it brings charges against him based on his official acts as president, absolute presidential immunity prevents him from being prosecuted.[3] He also moved to dismiss the indictment under the Impeachment Judgment Clause and double jeopardy. The Impeachment Clause states that a former president cannot be prosecuted without first being impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.[4] He invokes double jeopardy because he was acquitted by the Senate for the actions related to his 2023 indictment.[3]

    Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially set Trump’s trial for March 4, 2024.[5] However, she later vacated this date and stated that a new date would be set after Trump’s presidential immunity claims were resolved. The district court also denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds of presidential immunity.[5] Smith asked the Supreme Court to review the district court’s decision without waiting on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Supreme Court denied this request.[5]

    The D.C. Circuit affirmed Chutkan’s decision and denied Trump’s Impeachment Clause claims. On February 12, Trump requested for the Supreme Court to place a hold on the D.C. circuit’s ruling in order to have enough time to file a petition for the Supreme Court to review the ruling.[5] The Supreme Court decided to expedite the case in order to resolve it quickly.[6]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the “‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959)).

    II. Whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7, and principles of double jeopardy foreclose the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the U.S. Senate for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges. [7]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that "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."[1] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ 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...

    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.[7]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ 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...

    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. [7]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion in part.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ 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...

    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... 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.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ 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.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Jackson

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.

    In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ 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...

    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.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 U.S. Supreme Court, "TRUMP v. UNITED STATES," decided July 1, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "On Application for Stay of the Mandate To Be Issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," accessed March 1, 2024
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "President Donald J. Trump, Applicant, v. United States Of America, Respondent," February 28, 2024
    4. ↑ Constitution Annotated, "ArtII.S4.1 Overview of Impeachment Clause," February 28, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal," February 28, 2024
    6. ↑ “Oyez, “Trump v. United States," March 20, 2024
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 25, 2024
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 25, 2024
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_v._United_States&oldid=9601586"