Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

34 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal 
acts in the ordinary course of law.  So if a President man-
ages  to  conceal  certain  crimes  throughout  his  Presidency, 
or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to im-
peach the President for his crimes, then they must forever 
remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can
remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery,
or  other  high  Crimes  and  Misdemeanors.”    Art. II,  §4. 
Transforming that political process into a necessary step in 
the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the 
text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government. 

B 

The Government for its part takes a similarly broad view, 
contending  that  the  President  enjoys  no  immunity  from
criminal prosecution for any action.  It maintains this view 
despite agreeing with much of our analysis.

For instance, the Government does not dispute that Con-
gress may not criminalize Presidential conduct within the
President’s  “conclusive  and  preclusive”  constitutional  au-
thority.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 133 (“[C]ore powers . . . can’t 
be regulated at all, like the pardon power and veto.”); see
also id., at 84–85.  And it too accords protection to Presiden-
tial conduct if subjecting that conduct to generally applica-
ble  laws  would  “raise  serious  constitutional  questions  re-
garding  the  President’s  authority”  or  cause  a  “possible
conflict  with  the  President’s  constitutional  prerogatives.”
Application  of  28  U. S. C.  §458  to  Presidential  Appoint-
ments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. OLC 350, 351–352 (1995);
see Brief for United States 26–29; Tr. of Oral Arg. 78.  In-
deed, the Executive Branch has long held that view.  The 
Office of Legal Counsel has recognized, for instance, that a
federal statute generally prohibiting appointments to “ ‘any 
office  or  duty  in  any  court’ ”  of  persons  within  certain  de-
grees of consanguinity to the judges of such courts would, if