Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

applied to the President, infringe his power to appoint fed-
eral  judges,  thereby  raising  a  serious  constitutional  ques-
tion.  19 Op. OLC, at 350 (quoting 28 U. S. C. §458); see id., 
at 350–352.  So it viewed such a statute as not applying to
the President.  Likewise, it has narrowly construed a crim-
inal prohibition on grassroots lobbying to avoid the consti-
tutional issues that would otherwise arise, reasoning that 
the statute should not “be construed to prohibit the Presi-
dent or executive branch agencies from engaging in a gen-
eral open dialogue with the public on the Administration’s 
programs and policies.”  Constraints Imposed by 18 U. S. C.
§1913 on Lobbying Efforts, 13 Op. OLC 300, 304 (1989); see 
id., at 304–306. 

The Government thus broadly agrees that the President’s 
official  acts  are  entitled  to  some  degree  of  constitutional 
protection.    And  with  respect  to  the  allegations  in  the  in-
dictment  before  us,  the  Government  agrees  that  at  least 
some of the alleged conduct involves official acts.  See Tr. of 
Oral Arg. 125; cf. id., at 128. 

Yet the Government contends that the President should 
not be considered immune from prosecution for those offi-
cial  acts.  See  Brief  for  United  States  9.    On  the  Govern-
ment’s 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 un-
til after trial.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 69, 79–80, 154–158.  If 
the  President  is  instead  immune  from  prosecution,  a  dis-
trict court’s denial of immunity would be appealable before
trial.  See Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 524–530 (explaining that 
questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because 
the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject
to suit).

The  Government  asserts  that  the  “[r]obust  safeguards”
available in typical criminal proceedings alleviate the need 
for pretrial review.  Brief for United States 20 (boldface and