Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 112

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

15 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

with the events of January 6, 2021, for example, the major-
ity admits that the “alleged conduct cannot be neatly cate-
gorized,” and that “[t]he analysis therefore . . . may prove to
be challenging.”  Ante, at 28–29.  With that, at least, I could 
not agree more.

This much is clear: Before today, none of these kinds of
inquiries was necessary for criminal liability to be fairly as-
sessed with respect to persons accused of having engaged in
criminal  conduct.  And,  frankly,  none  is  needed  now—ex-
cept as relates to the President under the new paradigm the 
majority has crafted.

Perhaps even more troubling, while Congress (the branch
of our Government most accountable to the People) is the
entity  our  Constitution  tasks  with  deciding,  as  a  general 
matter, what conduct is on or off limits, the Court has now 
arrogated  that  power  unto  itself  when  that  question  per-
tains to the President.  In essence, the Court has now im-
posed its own preclearance requirement on the application
of  Congress’s  laws  to  a  former  President  alleged  to  have
committed crimes while in office.  Who will be responsible 
for drawing the crucial “ ‘line between [the President’s] per-
sonal and official affairs’ ”?  Ante, at 29.  To ask the question
is to know the answer.  A majority of this Court, applying
an indeterminate test, will pick and choose which laws ap-
ply  to  which  Presidents,  by  labeling  his  various  allegedly 
criminal acts as “core,” “official,” or “manifestly or palpably”
beyond the President’s authority.

Ironically, then, while purportedly seeking to transcend
politics,  see  ante,  at  41–42,  the  Court  today  displaces  the 
independent judgments of the political branches about the
circumstances under which the criminal law should apply.
Effectively, the Court elbows out of the way both Congress
and prosecutorial authorities within the Executive Branch, 
making  itself  the  indispensable  player  in  all  future  at-
tempts to hold former Presidents accountable to generally
applicable criminal laws.  “The Framers, however, did not