BREAKING: SC issues Immunity ruling
Case remanded to district Court to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,
ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BAR-
RETT, 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court con-
cludes 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 safe-
guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive
Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional du-
ties 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. Alt-
hough 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 predi-
cated 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 partic-
ular. 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 differ-
entiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how
to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allega-
tions covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on
those issues. Pp. 16–32.
= new reply since forum marked as read
