Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

8 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

discharge  of  his  official  duties.”    Fitzgerald,  457  U. S.,  at  752,  n.  32. 
The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective 
functioning of government.”  Id., at 751.  Pp. 34–37.

(e) This  case  poses  a  question  of  lasting  significance:  When  may  a
former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Pres-
idency?  In answering that question, unlike the political branches and 
the  public  at  large,  the  Court  cannot  afford  to  fixate  exclusively,  or 
even primarily, on present exigencies.  Enduring separation of powers
principles guide our decision in this case.  The President enjoys no im-
munity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is 
official.  The President is not above the law.  But under our system of 
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising 
his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presump-
tive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.  That immunity 
applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.  Pp. 41–43. 

91 F. 4th 1173, vacated and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, 
ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BAR-
RETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C.  THOMAS, J., filed a concurring 
opinion.  BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part.  SOTOMAYOR, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. 
JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.