Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 101

4 

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

of counsel, and the right to confront the witnesses against
him.  Amdt. 6.  The defendant also has at his disposal many 
means to defend himself against the criminal charge.  He 
can, of course, seek to hold the Government to its burden of 
proof at trial.  And even before trial, in a motion to dismiss 
the indictment, he might make any number of legal argu-
ments; he can assert, for example, that the Government’s 
charging  document  does  not  give  adequate  notice  of  the
charge against him or that the law he has been accused of 
violating  is  unconstitutionally  vague.  See  Hamling  v. 
United States, 418 U. S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. Da-
vis, 588 U. S. 445, 451 (2019).  He might further claim that 
the law is unconstitutional as applied to his particular con-
duct.  See  United  States  v.  O’Brien,  391  U. S.  367,  376 
(1968).  And  he  might  maintain  that  his  conduct,  even  if 
proved, does not violate the law at issue.  See, e.g., Fischer 
v. United States, 603 U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (slip op., at 2). 

The defendant may also raise, and attempt to prove, af-
firmative defenses that “excuse conduct that would other-
wise be punishable.”  Dixon v. United States, 548 U. S. 1, 6 
(2006).  Generally speaking, affirmative defenses are deter-
minations  (often  adopted  by  legislation)  that  certain  con-
duct otherwise punishable by law is justified.  This might 
be the case, for example, when the Legislature determines
that, under specified circumstances, the societal harm par-
ticular conduct causes “is outweighed by the need to avoid
an even greater harm.”  1 P. Robinson, Criminal Law De-
fenses §24(a) (1984) (Robinson).

Importantly, a defense is not an immunity, even though
a  defense  can  likewise  result  in  a  person  charged  with  a
crime avoiding liability for his criminal conduct.  Consistent 
with our foundational norms, the individual accountability 
model adheres to the presumption that the law applies to 
all and that everyone must follow it; yet, the model makes 
allowances for recognized defenses.  One such defense is the