Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 116.0

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

19 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

any American who has studied history knows that “our gov-
ernment was designed to have such restrictions.”  Ibid. (em-
phasis  added).  Our  Constitution’s  “separation  of  powers 
was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote ef-
ficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.  The 
purpose was, not to avoid friction, but . . . to save the people
from autocracy.”  Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 293 
(1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 

Having  now  cast  the  shadow  of  doubt  over  when—if 
ever—a former President will be subject to criminal liability 
for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the
majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line
of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act
“manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,” ante, at 
17,  they  will  be  presumed  above  prosecution  and  punish-
ment alike. 

But the majority also tells us not to worry, because “[l]ike
everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his 
unofficial capacity.”  Ante, at 40 (emphasis added).  This at-
tempted reassurance is cold comfort, even setting aside the 
fact that the Court has neglected to lay out a standard that
reliably distinguishes between a President’s official and un-
official conduct.  Why?  Because there is still manifest ineq-
uity: Presidents alone are now free to commit crimes when 
they are on the job, while all other Americans must follow 
the law in all aspects of their lives, whether personal or pro-
fessional. The official-versus-unofficial act distinction also 
seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the 
unofficial criminal acts of a President are the only ones wor-
thy  of  prosecution.  Quite  to  the  contrary,  it  is  when  the
President  commits  crimes  using  his  unparalleled  official
powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most
dire.  So, the fact that, “unlike anyone else, the President 
is” vested with “sweeping powers and duties,” ibid., actually
underscores,  rather  than  undermines,  the  grim  stakes  of 
setting  the  criminal  law  to  the  side  when  the  President