Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

We  offer  guidance  on  those  issues  below.  Certain  allega-
tions—such  as  those  involving  Trump’s  discussions  with 
the  Acting  Attorney  General—are  readily  categorized  in 
light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to
the office held by that individual.  Other allegations—such
as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice Pres-
ident,  state  officials,  and  certain  private  parties,  and  his
comments  to  the  general  public—present  more  difficult
questions.  Although we identify several considerations per-
tinent  to  classifying  those  allegations  and  determining
whether  they  are  subject  to  immunity,  that  analysis  ulti-
mately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first
instance. 

A 

Distinguishing  the  President’s  official  actions  from  his 
unofficial  ones  can  be  difficult.    When  the  President  acts 
pursuant  to  “constitutional  and  statutory  authority,”  he
takes  official  action  to  perform  the  functions  of  his  office. 
Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 757.  Determining whether an ac-
tion is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the 
President’s authority to take that action. 

But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary respon-
sibilities”  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  “in  a  broad  variety  of  areas,  many  of  them  highly 
sensitive,” frequently makes it “difficult to determine which 
of  [his]  innumerable  ‘functions’  encompassed  a  particular 
action.”  Id.,  at  756.  And  some  Presidential  conduct—for 
example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, 
see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly 
can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to 
a particular constitutional or statutory provision.  For those 
reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the
“outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, 
covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or pal-
pably beyond [his] authority.”  Blassingame  v. Trump,  87