Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 115.0

18 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

All of this leads me to ponder why, exactly, has the ma-
jority  concluded  that  an  indeterminate  “core”-versus-“offi-
cial”-versus-“unofficial” line-drawing exercise is the better
way  to  address  potential  criminal  acts  of  a  President? 
Could it be that the majority believes the obviously grave
dangers  of  shifting  from  the  individual  accountability 
model to the Presidential accountability model might nev-
ertheless be offset by the great benefits of doing so? Cf. J. 
Bentham, A Fragment on Government and an Introduction
to the Principles of Morals and Legislation 3 (W. Harrison
ed. 1948) (arguing that acts can be justified by the maxim 
that  “it  is  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  greatest  number 
that is the measure of right and wrong” (emphasis deleted)). 
Some of the majority’s analysis suggests as much.  As far 
as I can tell, the majority is mostly concerned that, without 
immunity,  Presidents  might  “be  chilled  from  taking  the
‘bold  and  unhesitating  action’  required  of  an  independent 
Executive.”  Ante, at 13.  The Court’s opinion candidly la-
ments that application of the law to Presidents might not 
be evenhanded, and that, as a result, Presidents might be
less “ ‘vigorous’ and ‘energetic’ ” as executive officers.  Ante, 
at 10; accord, ante, at 39.  But that concern ignores (or re-
jects)  the  foundational  principles  upon  which  the  tradi-
tional individual accountability paradigm is based.  Worse 
still,  promoting  more  vigor  from  Presidents  in  exercising
their  official  duties—and,  presumably,  less  deliberation—
invites breathtaking risks in terms of harm to the American
people that, in my view, far outweigh the benefits.

This is not to say that the majority is wrong when it per-
ceives that it can be cumbersome for a President to have to 
follow the law while carrying out his duty to enforce it.  It 
is certainly true that “[a] scheme of government like ours
no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with com-
plete,  all-embracing,  swiftly  moving  authority.”    Youngs-
town, 343 U. S., at 613 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).  But