Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Page Number: 67

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

7 

BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

connection  to  the  charged  offense.    And  if  the  evidence 
comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it 
only  for  lawful  purposes.  See  Richardson  v.  Marsh,  481 
U. S. 200, 206–207 (1987).  I see no need to depart from that
familiar and time-tested procedure here. 

* 

* 

* 
The Constitution does not insulate Presidents from crim-
inal liability for official acts.  But any statute regulating the
exercise  of  executive  power  is  subject  to  a  constitutional 
challenge.  See, e.g., Collins v. Yellen, 594 U. S. 220, 235– 
236  (2021);  Zivotofsky  v.  Clinton,  566  U. S.  189,  192–194 
(2012); Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting 
Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 487–488 (2010).  A criminal 
statute is no exception.  Thus, a President facing prosecu-
tion may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal stat-
ute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment.  If 
that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial.