Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

6 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

to state legislatures for review. 

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re-
sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct.  Presiding over the Jan-
uary 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 pro-
ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump-
tively 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 in-
trusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.  Pp.
21–24. 

(iii) The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s in-
teractions 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 cer-
tain  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 admin-
istration of the federal election.  As the Government sees it, however, 
Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the Pres-
ident 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  “ex-
traordinary 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