Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 84

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

17 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

If the case nonetheless makes it to trial, the Government 
will bear the burden of proving every element of the alleged 
crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of the
former  President’s  fellow  citizens.    See  United  States  v. 
Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 510 (1995).  If the Government man-
ages to overcome even that significant hurdle, then the for-
mer President can appeal his conviction, and the appellate
review  of  his  claims  will  be  “ ‘particularly  meticulous.’ ”  
Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 809 (2020) (quoting Nixon, 
418 U. S., at 702).  He can ultimately seek this Court’s re-
view, and if past practice (including in this case) is any in-
dication, he will receive it. 

In light of these considerable protections, the majority’s 
fear that “ ‘bare allegations of malice,’ ” ante, at 18 (altera-
tion omitted), would expose former Presidents to trial and
conviction is unfounded.  Bare allegations of malice would 
not make it out of the starting gate.  Although a private civil
action may be brought based on little more than “ ‘intense
feelings,’ ” ante, at 11 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752),
a federal criminal prosecution is made of firmer stuff.  Cer-
tainly there has been, on occasion, great feelings of animos-
ity  between  incoming  and  outgoing  Presidents  over  the
course of our country’s history.   Yet it took  allegations as 
grave  as  those  at  the  center  of  this  case  to  have  the  first 
federal  criminal  prosecution  of  a  former  President.    That 
restraint is telling.

Third, because of longstanding interpretations by the Ex-
ecutive Branch, every sitting President has so far believed 
himself under the threat of criminal liability after his term
in office and nevertheless boldly fulfilled the duties of his 
office.  The majority insists that the threat of criminal sanc-
tions is “more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking 
than the potential payment of civil damages.”  Ante, at 13. 
If that is right, then that distortion has been shaping Pres-
idential  decisionmaking  since  the  earliest  days  of  the  Re-
public.  Although it makes sense to avoid “diversion of the