Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

26 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

geted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots” in his fa-
vor.  Id.,  at  214,  ¶66.    Those  ballots  “were  mailed  to  the 
President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, 
and others.”  Ibid., ¶67.

At  oral  argument,  Trump  appeared  to  concede  that  at
least  some  of  these  acts—those  involving  “private  actors”
who “helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates 
of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceed-
ing” at the direction of Trump and a co-conspirator—entail
“private”  conduct.    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  29–30.  He  later  as-
serted, however, that asking “the chairwoman of the Repub-
lican National Committee . . . to gather electors” qualifies
as  official  conduct  because  “the  organization  of  alternate
slates of electors is based on, for example, the historical ex-
ample of President Grant as something that was done pur-
suant to and ancillary and preparatory to the exercise of ” a
core Presidential power.  Id., at 37; see also id., at 25 (dis-
cussing  the  “historical  precedent  . . .  of  President  Grant 
sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876
to  make  sure  that  the Republican  electors  got  certified  in
those two cases, which delivered the election to Rutherford 
B. Hayes”).  He also argued that it is “[a]bsolutely an official
act for the president to communicate with state officials on 
. . . the integrity of a federal election.”  Id., at 38.  The Gov-
ernment  disagreed,  contending  that  this  alleged  conduct 
does not qualify as “official conduct” but as “campaign con-
duct.”  Id., at 124–125. 

On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official 
because  it  was  undertaken  to  ensure  the  integrity  and 
proper administration of the federal election.  Of course, the 
President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
executed” plainly encompasses enforcement of federal elec-
tion laws passed by Congress.  Art. II, §3.  And the Presi-
dent’s  broad  power  to  speak  on  matters  of  public  concern
does not exclude his public communications regarding the 
fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he