Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

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

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

and disgrace.”  Id., at 458.  In contrast to the king, the Pres-
ident should be subject to “personal responsibility” for his 
actions, “stand[ing] upon no better ground than a governor 
of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of
Maryland and Delaware,” whose State Constitutions gave
them some immunity.  Id., at 452. 

At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, who 
was  aware  that  some  state  constitutions  provided  gover-
nors  immunity,  proposed  that  the  Convention  “conside[r ]
what  privileges  ought  to  be  allowed  to  the  Executive.”    2 
Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 503 (M. Far-
rand ed. 1911).  There is no record of any such discussion. 
Ibid.  Delegate Charles Pinckney later explained that “[t]he
Convention which formed the Constitution well knew” that 
“no subject had been more abused than privilege,” and so it
“determined to . . . limi[t] privilege to what was necessary, 
and no more.”  3 id., at 385.  “No privilege . . . was intended 
for [the] Executive.”  Ibid.2 

Other commentators around the time of the Founding ob-
served that federal officials had no immunity from prosecu-
tion, drawing no exception for the President.  James Wilson 
recognized that federal officers who use their official powers 
to commit crimes “may be tried by their country; and if their
criminality is established, the law will punish.  A grand jury
may present, a petty jury may convict, and the judges will 
pronounce the punishment.”  2 Debates on the Constitution 
177 (J. Elliot ed. 1836).  A few decades later, Justice Story 
evinced the same understanding.  He explained that, when 

—————— 

2 To note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this Court has rec-
ognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to
say that Pinckney was wrong about what the Framers had “intended.” 
Indeed, Pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the rat-
ification debates.  See, e.g., 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot
ed.  1836)  (J.  Iredell)  (“If  the  President  does  a  single  act  by  which  the
people  are  prejudiced,  he  is punishable  himself.  . . .  If he  commits  any 
crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”).