Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

criminal  law  (a  determination  that  is  made  based  on  nu-
merous factors).  And even if prosecutors decide to bring a
charge, a jury of the criminal defendant’s peers ultimately 
determines  whether  that  defendant  (including  a  former
President)  will  actually  be  held  to  account  for  having  en-
gaged in unlawful conduct, after the court has resolved any
legal  challenges  and  has  instructed  the  jury  as  to  the  re-
quirements of the law. 

By  contrast,  under  the  majority’s  new  Presidential  ac-
countability paradigm, what a prosecutor or jury does may 
not  even  matter,  since  the  courts  take  center  stage  once
charges are brought against a former President, marshal-
ing  their  resources  to  conduct  a  complex  and  amorphous 
threshold  immunity  evaluation.  Whether  a  former  Presi-
dent will be entirely exempted from the dictates of the law 
(such that the roles of other participants in the criminal jus-
tice  process  become  irrelevant)  requires  a  judicial  assess-
ment, in the first instance, of his criminal conduct and the 
circumstances under which he acted. 

Finally, and most importantly, recall that under the indi-
vidual accountability model, an indicted former President 
can raise an affirmative defense just like any other criminal 
defendant.  This means that the President remains answer-
able to the law, insofar as he must show that he was justi-
fied in committing a criminal act while in office under the 
given circumstances.  In other words, while the President 
might indeed be privileged to commit a crime in the course 
of his official duties, any such privilege exists only when the 
People (acting either through their elected representatives 
or as members of a jury) determine that the former Presi-
dent’s  conduct  was  in  fact  justified,  notwithstanding  the
general criminal prohibition.

Under the majority’s immunity regime, by contrast, the
President can commit crimes in the course of his job even
under circumstances in which no one thinks he has any ex-