Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

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

1 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–939 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2024]

 JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. 
JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  has  thoroughly  addressed  the 
Court’s flawed reasoning and conclusion as a matter of his-
tory, tradition, law, and logic.  I agree with every word of 
her powerful dissent.  I write separately to explain, as suc-
cinctly as I can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, ex-
actly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of
accountability  for  Presidents  of  the  United  States.    I  also 
address  what  that  paradigm  shift  means  for  our  Nation
moving forward. 

I 
To fully appreciate the profound change the majority has
wrought, one must first acknowledge what it means to have
immunity from criminal prosecution.  Put simply, immun-
ity is “exemption” from the duties and liabilities imposed by
law.  Black’s Law Dictionary 898 (11th ed. 2019); see Hop-
kins v. Clemson, 221 U. S. 636, 643 (1911) (explaining that 
immunity is “exemption from legal process”).  In its purest
form,  the  concept  of  immunity  boils  down  to  a  maxim—
“ ‘[t]he  King  can  do  no  wrong’ ”—a  notion  that  was  firmly 
“rejected at the birth of [our] Republic.”  Clinton v. Jones, 
520 U. S. 681, 697, n. 24 (1997) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, 
Commentaries  *246  (Blackstone));  see  United  States  v. 
Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807).  To say