Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–939 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2024]

 JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part. 
For reasons I explain below, I do not join Part III–C of the 
Court’s opinion.  The remainder of the opinion is consistent
with my view that the Constitution prohibits Congress from 
criminalizing a President’s exercise of core Article II powers 
and closely related conduct.  That said, I would have framed 
the underlying legal issues differently.  The Court describes 
the President’s constitutional protection from certain pros-
ecutions as an “immunity.”  As I see it, that term is short-
hand for two propositions: The President can challenge the
constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official 
acts alleged in the indictment, and he can obtain interlocu-
tory review of the trial court’s ruling. 

There  appears  to  be  substantial  agreement  on  the  first
point.  Like the Court, the dissenting Justices and the Spe-
cial  Counsel  all  accept  that  some  prosecutions  of  a  Presi-
dent’s official conduct may be unconstitutional.  See post, at 
16 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); Brief for United States 24– 
30.  As  for  interlocutory  review,  our  precedent  recognizes 
that resolving certain legal issues before trial is necessary
to safeguard important constitutional interests—here, Ex-
ecutive Branch independence on matters that Article II as-
signs to the President’s discretion.

Properly conceived, the President’s constitutional protec-
tion from prosecution is narrow.  The Court leaves open the