Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 106

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

9 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

or any other reprehensible and outlawed criminal act will
turn on whether he committed that act in his official capac-
ity, such that the answer to the immunity question will al-
ways and inevitably be: It depends. 

Under  the  individual  accountability  paradigm,  the  ac-
countability analysis is markedly less convoluted, and leads
to a more certain outcome.  None of the same complications
or consequences arise, because, as I have explained, there 
are no exemptions from the criminal law for any person, but 
every defendant can assert whatever legal arguments and 
defenses might be applicable under governing law.   Since 
no one is above the law, everyone can focus on what the law 
demands and permits, and on what the defendant did or did 
not do; no one has to worry about characterizing any crimi-
nal  conduct  as  official  or  unofficial  in  order  to  assess  the 
applicability of an immunity at the outset. 

The majority’s new Presidential accountability model is
also distinct insofar as it accepts as a basic starting premise
that generally applicable criminal laws do not apply to eve-
ryone in our society.  In the majority’s view, while all other 
citizens  of  the  United  States  must  do  their  jobs  and  live 
their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions, the
President cannot be made to do so; he must sometimes be 
exempt from the law’s dictates depending on the character 
of his conduct.  Indeed, the majority holds that the Presi-
dent,  unlike  anyone  else  in  our  country,  is  comparatively
free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official
duties. 

That  point  bears  emphasizing.    Immunity  can  issue  for
Presidents under the majority’s model even for unquestion-
ably  and  intentionally  egregious  criminal  behavior.  Re-
gardless of the nature or the impact of the President’s crim-
inal conduct, so long as he is committing crimes “pursuant
to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitu-
tion,” ante, at 7, or as needed “to carry out his constitutional 
duties without undue caution,” ante, at 14, he is likely to be