Trump v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Trump v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Trump v. United States.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a former President can be prosecuted for actions taken during their presidency. The Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their exclusive constitutional authority and at least presumptive immunity for official acts. The case was remanded to determine the nature of the conduct alleged in the indictment.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Trump v. United States.
The Court held that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their conclusive constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for official acts.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Trump v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Trump v. United States
The case primarily addresses the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during the presidency, which directly relates to the constitutional authority and limits on presidential action.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for offcial acts during his tenure in offce.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Trump v. United States
The Court's decision involves the power of the judiciary to review and potentially invalidate government action, specifically the prosecution of a former President.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding.
-
Why Appointments and Removals is relevant to Trump v. United States
The case discusses the President's authority to remove executive officers, which is a component of the broader discussion on executive power and immunity.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The President's 'management of the Executive Branch' requires him to have 'unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates'—such as the Attorney General—'in their most important duties.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Trump v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
There is no immunity for unoffcial acts.
The separation of powers principles explicated in the Court's precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President's acts within the outer perimeter of his offcial responsibility.
