Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 54

10 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indict-
ment,  Trial,  Judgment,  and  Punishment,  according  to
Law.”  Art. I, §3, cl. 7.  The plain implication is that criminal
prosecution, like removal from the Presidency and disqual-
ification from other offices, is a consequence that can come
about only after the Senate’s judgment, not during or prior 
to the Senate trial. 

This was how Hamilton explained the impeachment pro-
visions in the Federalist Papers.  He wrote that a President 
may “be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction . . . would 
afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the 
ordinary course of law.”  The Federalist No. 69, p. 416 (C. 
Rossiter ed. 1961) (emphasis added); see also id., No. 77, at 
464 (A. Hamilton) (a President is “at all times liable to im-
peachment,  trial,  [and]  dismission  from  office,”  but  any 
other punishment must come only “by subsequent prosecu-
tion in the common course of law” (emphasis added)).

In  the  proceedings  below,  neither  respondent,  nor  the
District  Court,  nor  the  Second  Circuit  was  willing  to  con-
cede the fundamental point that a sitting President may not
be prosecuted by a local district attorney.  Respondent has
said that he is investigating the President and, until oral
argument in this Court, he never foreswore an intention to
charge the President while he is still in office.7  The District 

—————— 

7 During  oral  argument  in  the  Second  Circuit,  respondent’s  attorney 

said the following: 

“It’s  hard  for  me  to  say  that  there  could  be  no  circumstance  under 
which a President could ever imaginably be criminally charged or per-
haps tried . . . .  You can invent scenarios where you can imagine that it
would be necessary or at least perhaps a good idea for a sitting President
to be subject to a criminal charge even by a state while in office.”  Re-
cording  of  Oral  Arg.  in  No.  19–3204  (CA2,  Oct.  23,  2019),  at  28:20– 
28:40;  36:35–36:45,  https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/oral_argu-
ments.html. 

Respondent’s brief in this case says only that “[f]or the purpose of this 
case, the Court may assume . . . that a sitting President is not amenable 
to criminal prosecution.”  Brief for Respondent Vance 24–25.  During oral