Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 99.0

2 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say 
that, like a King, he “is not under the coercive power of the
law,” which “will not suppose him capable of committing a
folly, much less a crime.”  4 Blackstone *33.  Thus, being
immune is not like having a defense under the law.  Rather, 
it means that the law does not apply to the immunized per-
son in the first place.  Conferring immunity therefore “cre-
ate[s]  a  privileged  class  free  from  liability  for  wrongs  in-
flicted or injuries threatened.”  Hopkins, 221 U. S., at 643. 
It is indisputable that immunity from liability for wrong-
doing is the exception rather than the rule in the American 
criminal justice system.  That is entirely unsurprising, for 
the very idea of immunity stands in tension with founda-
tional principles of our system of Government.  It is a core 
tenet of our democracy that the People are the sovereign,
and the Rule of Law is our first and final security.  “[F]rom 
their own experience and their deep reading in history, the
Founders knew that Law alone saves a society from being 
rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power how-
ever disguised.”  United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 
258, 308 (1947) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). 
A corollary to that principle sets the terms for this case:
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.
No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with im-
punity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest 
to  the  lowest,  are  creatures  of  the  law,  and  are  bound  to 
obey it.”  United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 220 (1882).  We 
have  long  lived  with  the  collective  understanding  that
“[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that govern-
ment officials shall be subjected to the same rules of con-
duct that are commands to the citizen,” for “[i]n a govern-
ment of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled 
if  it  fails  to  observe  the  law  scrupulously.”    Olmstead  v. 
United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dis-
senting).