Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:

 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

Syllabus 

communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perim-
eter 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 in-
form 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  in-
stance 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 im-
mune 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  impeach-
ment  and  Senate  conviction  precede  a  President’s  criminal  prosecu-
tion.  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 en-
forcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Consti-
tution 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 particu-
lar  actions,  consistent  with  the  separation  of  powers,  must  be  ad-
dressed at the outset of a proceeding.  Even if the President were ulti-
mately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an
extended  proceeding  alone  may  render  him  “unduly  cautious  in  the