Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

a former President “is entitled to absolute immunity from
damages  liability  predicated  on  his  official  acts.”    Id.,  at 
749.  That case involved a terminated Air Force employee
who sued former President Richard Nixon for damages, al-
leging  that  Nixon  approved  an  Air  Force  reorganization
that wrongfully led to his firing.  In holding that Nixon was
immune  from  that  suit,  “our  dominant  concern”  was  to 
avoid “diversion of the President’s attention during the de-
cisionmaking  process  caused  by  needless  worry  as  to  the
possibility of damages actions stemming from any particu-
lar  official  decision.”  Clinton,  520  U. S.,  at  694,  n. 19. 
“[T]he singular importance of the President’s duties” impli-
cating “matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings,’ ” 
coupled with “the sheer prominence of [his] office,” height-
ens  the  prospect  of  private  damages  suits  that  would 
threaten such diversion.  Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 751–753 
(quoting  Pierson  v.  Ray,  386  U. S.  547,  554  (1967)).    We 
therefore concluded that the President must be absolutely
immune from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer
perimeter’  of  his  official  responsibility.”    Fitzgerald,  457 
U. S., at 756. 

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from 
the  President,  we  have  consistently  rejected  Presidential 
claims of absolute immunity.  For instance, during the trea-
son trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, Chief Justice 
Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that
the President could not be subjected to a subpoena.  Mar-
shall reasoned that “the law does not discriminate between 
the president and a private citizen.”  United States v. Burr, 
25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Burr I).  Be-
cause a President does not “stand exempt from the general 
provisions of the constitution,” including the Sixth Amend-
ment’s guarantee that those accused shall have compulsory
process  for  obtaining  witnesses  for  their  defense,  a  sub-
poena could issue.  Id., at 33–34. 

Marshall  acknowledged,  however,  the  existence  of  a