Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

The  Clause  both  limits  the  consequences  of  an  impeach-
ment  judgment  and  clarifies  that  notwithstanding  such
judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed.  By its own
terms,  the  Clause  does  not  address  whether  and  on  what 
conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never im-
peached and convicted.

Historical  evidence  likewise  lends  little  support  to
Trump’s position.  For example, Justice Story reasoned that 
without  the  Clause’s  clarification  that  “Indictment,  Trial, 
Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Sen-
ate  conviction,  “it  might  be  matter  of  extreme  doubt,
whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, 
either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of im-
peachments.”  2  J.  Story,  Commentaries  on  the  Constitu-
tion of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833).  James Wilson, 
who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and 
later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that ac-
quittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent 
prosecution.  See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification 
of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979).  And contrary
to  Trump’s  contention,  Alexander  Hamilton  did  not  disa-
gree.  The  Federalist  Papers  on  which  Trump  relies,  see 
Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available 
against  a  sitting  President.  Hamilton  noted  that  unlike 
“the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable
to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would af-
terwards  be  liable  to  prosecution  and  punishment.”    The 
Federalist No. 69, at  463; see also  id., No. 77, at 520 (ex-
plaining  that  the  President  is  “at  all  times  liable  to  im-
peachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the for-
feiture  of  life  and  estate  by  subsequent  prosecution”).
Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Im-
peachment  Judgment  Clause  immunizes  a  former  Presi-
dent from prosecution.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who
evades impeachment for one reason or another during his