Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 23–939.  Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024 

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four 
counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the 
November 2020 election.  The indictment alleged that after losing that 
election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false
claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certi-
fying of the election results.  Trump moved to dismiss the indictment
based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute
immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the 
outer  perimeter  of  his  official  responsibilities,  and  that  the  indict-
ment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.  The District 
Court  denied  Trump’s  motion  to  dismiss,  holding  that  former  Presi-
dents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.  The D. C. 
Circuit  affirmed.    Both  the  District  Court  and  the  D. C.  Circuit  de-
clined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. 

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature 
of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclu-
sive constitutional authority.  And he is entitled to at least presump-
tive  immunity  from  prosecution  for  all  his  official  acts.    There  is  no 
immunity for unofficial acts.  Pp. 5–43.

(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history 
of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency.  Deter-
mining  whether  and  under  what  circumstances  such  a  prosecution
may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential
power under the Constitution.  The nature of that power requires that 
a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for
official  acts  during  his  tenure  in  office.    At  least  with  respect  to  the