Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

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

41 

Opinion of the Court 

avoid.  Ignoring  those  risks,  the  dissents  are instead  con-
tent  to  leave  the  preservation  of  our  system  of  separated 
powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.

Finally, the principal dissent finds it “troubling” that the 
Court does not “designate any course of conduct alleged in
the indictment as private.”  Post, at 27.  Despite the unprec-
edented  nature  of  this  case,  the  significant  constitutional 
questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower 
courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the 
lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize
the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead 
and  declare  all  of  it  unofficial.    The  other  dissent,  mean-
while, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and 
paradigms  of  its  own  concoction  and  accuses  the  Court  of
providing “no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] 
new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.” 
Post, at 13 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).  It would have us ex-
haustively define every application of Presidential immun-
ity.  See post, at 13–14.  Our dissenting colleagues exude an
impressive infallibility.  While their confidence may be in-
spiring,  the  Court  adheres  to  time-tested  practices  in-
stead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and
remanding after “revers[ing] on a threshold question,” Zi-
votofsky, 566 U. S., at 201, to obtain “guidance from the lit-
igants [and] the court below,” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286, 
328 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment). 

V 

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When 
may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken
during his Presidency?  Our Nation has never before needed 
an answer.  But in addressing that question today, unlike 
the political branches and the public at large, we cannot af-
ford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exi-
gencies.  In a case like this one, focusing on “transient re-
sults” may have profound consequences for the separation