Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

8 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

a federal official commits a crime in office, “it is indispensa-
ble, that provision should be made, that the common tribu-
nals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction
of the offence, for the purpose of inflicting, the common pun-
ishment  applicable  to  unofficial  offenders.”  2  Commen-
taries  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  §780,
pp. 250–251 (1833).  Without a criminal trial, he explained, 
“the  grossest  official  offenders  might  escape  without  any
substantial punishment, even for crimes, which would sub-
ject their fellow citizens to capital punishment.”  Id., at 251. 
This historical evidence reinforces that, from the very be-
ginning,  the  presumption  in  this  Nation  has  always  been 
that no man is free to flout the criminal law.  The majority
fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evi-
dence for its new immunity.  With nothing on its side of the 
ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the his-
torical  evidence  is  a  wash.  See  ante,  at  38–39.    It  claims 
that the Court previously has described the “relevant his-
torical evidence on the question of Presidential immunity” 
as “ ‘fragmentary’ ” and not worthy of consideration.  Ante, 
at 38 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 31).  Yet the 
Court has described only the evidence regarding “the Pres-
ident’s immunity from damages liability” as “fragmentary.” 
Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 751–752, n. 31 (emphasis added).
Moreover, far from dismissing that evidence as irrelevant,
the Fitzgerald Court was careful to note that “[t]he best his-
torical  evidence  clearly  support[ed]”  the  immunity  from
damages liability that it recognized, and it relied in part on 
that historical evidence to overcome the lack of any textual
basis for its immunity.  Id., at 152, n. 31.  The majority ig-
nores this reliance.  It seems history matters to this Court
only when it is convenient.  See, e.g., New York State Rifle 
& Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022); Dobbs, 597 
U. S. 215.