Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 48

40 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

ald, 457 U. S., at 758, n. 41.  Like everyone else, the Presi-
dent is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity.  But 
unlike  anyone  else,  the  President  is  a  branch  of  govern-
ment, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers
and duties.  Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that 
the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the 
Framers  anticipated  he  would—does  not  place  him  above 
the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution
from which that law derives. 

The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring
the  Constitution’s  separation  of  powers  and  the  Court’s 
precedent  and  instead  fear  mongering  on  the  basis  of  ex-
treme  hypotheticals  about  a  future  where  the  President 
“feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”  Post, at 
18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, 
at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).  The dis-
sents  overlook  the  more  likely  prospect  of  an  Executive 
Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive Presi-
dent free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly 
and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be 
next.  For instance, Section 371—which has been charged 
in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can 
cover  “ ‘any  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  impairing,  ob-
structing  or  defeating  the  lawful  function  of  any  depart-
ment of Government.’ ”  United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 
169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 
(1910)).  Virtually every President is criticized for insuffi-
ciently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, 
gun, immigration, or environmental laws).  An enterprising
prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a pre-
vious  President  violated  that  broad  statute.    Without  im-
munity,  such  types  of  prosecutions  of  ex-Presidents  could
quickly become routine.  The enfeebling of the Presidency 
and our Government that would result from such a cycle of 
factional  strife  is  exactly  what  the  Framers  intended  to