Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 78

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

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

immunity is absolute or presumptive, but it quickly gives 
up the game.  It explains that, “[a]t a minimum, the Presi-
dent  must  . . .  be  immune  from  prosecution  for  an  official
act unless the Government can show that applying a crim-
inal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intru-
sion  on  the  authority  and  functions  of  the  Executive
Branch.’ ”  Ibid. (emphasis added).  No dangers, none at all.
It is hard to imagine a criminal prosecution for a President’s 
official acts that would pose no dangers of intrusion on Pres-
idential authority in the majority’s eyes.  Nor should that 
be the standard.  Surely some intrusions on the Executive
may  be  “justified  by  an  overriding  need  to  promote  objec-
tives  within  the  constitutional  authority  of  Congress.” 
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 
443 (1977).  Other intrusions may be justified by the “pri-
mary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice
in criminal prosecutions.”  United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 
683, 707 (1974).  According  to the majority,  however, any 
incursion on Executive power is too much.  When presump-
tive immunity is this conclusive, the majority’s indecision
as to “whether [official-acts] immunity must be absolute” or 
whether,  instead,  “presumptive  immunity  is  sufficient,” 
ante, at 6, hardly matters. 

Maybe some future opinion of this Court will decide that 
presumptive immunity is “sufficient,” ibid., and replace the 
majority’s  ironclad  presumption  with  one  that  makes  the
difference  between  presumptive  and  absolute  immunity 
meaningful.    Today’s  Court,  however,  has  replaced  a  pre-
sumption  of  equality  before  the  law  with  a  presumption
that the President is above the law for all of his official acts. 
Quick  on  the  heels  of  announcing  this  astonishingly 
broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a 
former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” 
Ante, at 15.  Of course he can.  No one has questioned the
ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial (other-