Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

30 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

select Tweets and brief snippets of the speech Trump deliv-
ered on the morning of January 6, omitting its full text or 
context.  See App. 228–230, Indictment ¶104.  Whether the 
Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on
January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the con-
tent and context of each.  Knowing, for instance, what else
was  said  contemporaneous  to  the  excerpted  communica-
tions,  or  who  was  involved  in  transmitting  the  electronic
communications and in organizing the rally, could be rele-
vant to the classification of each communication.  This nec-
essarily  factbound  analysis  is  best  performed  initially  by 
the  District  Court.    We  therefore  remand  to  the  District 
Court  to  determine  in  the  first  instance  whether  this  al-
leged conduct is official or unofficial. 

C 

The  essence  of  immunity  “is  its  possessor’s  entitlement 
not to have to answer  for his conduct” in court.  Mitchell, 
472 U. S., at 525.  Presidents therefore cannot be indicted 
based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecu-
tion.  As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at
least some such conduct.  See Part III–B–1, supra.  On re-
mand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indict-
ment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too 
involve conduct for which a President must be immune from 
prosecution.  And the parties and the District Court must 
ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s
charges without such conduct.

The Government does not dispute that if Trump is enti-
tled  to  immunity  for  certain  official  acts,  he  may  not  “be
held criminally liable” based on those acts.  Brief for United 
States 46.  But it nevertheless contends that a jury could 
“consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts
“for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence 
would  “be  admissible  to  prove,  for  example,  [Trump’s]
knowledge  or  notice  of  the  falsity  of  his  election-fraud