Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

14 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

federal criminal laws, is not above them. 

Chief Justice Marshall’s decisions in Burr and our deci-
sion  in  Nixon  recognized  the  distinct  interests  present  in 
criminal  prosecutions.  Although  Burr  acknowledged  that 
the President’s official papers may be privileged and pub-
licly unavailable, it did not grant him an absolute exemp-
tion from responding to subpoenas.  See Burr II, 25 F. Cas., 
at 192; Burr I, 25 F. Cas., at 33–34.  Nixon likewise recog-
nized  a  strong  protection  for  the  President’s  confidential
communications—a “presumptive privilege”—but it did not 
entirely  exempt  him  from  providing  evidence  in  criminal 
proceedings.  418 U. S., at 708. 

Taking into account these competing considerations, we
conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated
in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immun-
ity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within
the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.  Such an 
immunity  is  required  to  safeguard  the  independence  and 
effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable 
the President to carry out his constitutional duties without 
undue  caution.  Indeed,  if  presumptive  protection  for  the 
President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of
his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his 
official  papers  and  communications,  id.,  at  711,  it  is  cer-
tainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, 
and imprison the President himself for his official actions.
At  a  minimum,  the  President  must  therefore  be  immune 
from prosecution for an official act unless the Government 
can  show  that  applying  a  criminal  prohibition  to  that  act 
would  pose  no  “dangers  of  intrusion  on  the  authority  and
functions of the Executive Branch.”  Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., 
at 754. 

But as we explain below, the current stage of the proceed-
ings in this case does not require us to decide whether this
immunity is presumptive or absolute.  See Part III–B, infra. 
Because we need not decide that question today, we do not