Presidential Immunity

Extracted Attributes

• Scope

  Actions taken within the scope of official duties

• Purpose

  To protect public officials from excessive interference and disabling threats of liability; to ensure effective governance

• Limitation

  No immunity for unofficial acts

• Distinction

  Contrasts with qualified immunity

• Type of Immunity

  Sovereign immunity, absolute immunity

• Constitutional Basis

  Developed through U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3; not explicitly granted in the Constitution

• Recent Supreme Court Ruling (July 2024)

  Former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for acts committed within their constitutional powers as President, even if unlawful under US law.

Timeline

• The concept of presidential immunity dates back to this period. (Source: Web Search Results)

  1860s

• Mississippi attempted to sue President Andrew Johnson regarding the Reconstruction Acts in the case Mississippi v. Johnson, contributing to the development of presidential immunity. (Source: Web Search Results)

  1866-XX-XX

• The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. United States, holding that former President Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity for acts committed within his constitutional powers as President, even if unlawful under US law. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent. (Source: Web Search Results, Related Documents)

  2024-07-XX

Absolute immunity

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability." Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which sometimes applies when certain officials may have violated constitutional rights or federal law.

Web Search Results

• What Is Presidential Immunity? - Law - U.S. News & World Report

  Historically, presidential immunity has meant that a sitting president of the United States is granted judicial immunity for official acts taken as president. However, the Constitution doesn’t directly address presidential immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits, and there’s no document to point to an actual definition. [...] Instead, the concept of presidential immunity has become more of a privilege that has developed over the years from the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Currently, the Supreme Court is weighing Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference related to the 2020 presidential election. [...] So, what about criminal indictments? Can a president be criminally indicted and then prosecuted for official acts? “It’s important to note that presidential immunity is very important because presidents have a unique position within our constitutional scheme,” O’Neill says. “They personify an entire branch of the U.S. government, unlike Congress or the Judiciary.” So, context comes back to the fore.

• Article II: Presidential Immunity to Criminal and Civil Suits - FindLaw

  Presidential immunity generally provides immunity for a president’s official acts. In other words, presidents receive immunity for actions related to their official duties. The Constitution enumerates the president’s responsibilities in Article II, Section 3. They include the following: [...] Imagine if presidents did not have some form of immunity. In theory, any person could allege harm resulting from the president’s decisions. They could then file a lawsuit against the president and hold them personally liable for the damage caused. If that were the case, the president would spend all of their time in office defending against lawsuits. Presidential immunity protects against this diversion of time and energy. By doing so, it leads to more effective governance. [...] The Constitution does not explicitly grant immunity to the President. Instead, the doctrine of presidential immunity has developed over time through the judicial process involving civil cases filed against the head of the executive branch. The concept of presidential immunity dates back to the 1860s. In Mississippi v. Johnson (1866), Mississippi tried to sue President Andrew Johnson regarding the Reconstruction Acts.

• The “Loaded Weapon” of Presidential Immunity: An International ...

  > “As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity… Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the Presidents decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.” [...] In July 2024, the US Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 ruling, that former President Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity for acts he committed within his constitutional powers as President, even though they were unlawful under US law. The decision has sparked debate over potential implications for rogue presidents who may wish to subvert the law (here), and US foreign policy (here, here, here). Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, observed that this “new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a [...] The Supreme Court’s decision, though based loosely on the US Constitution, had little textual grounding. Nowhere in the Constitution does it discuss presidential immunity. Instead, the judgment applied presidential immunity “under [the] constitutional structure of separated powers”, considering the “nature of Presidential power”, which “requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office”. Nor does the Constitution refer to

• Defining the Scope of Presidential Immunity - Frost Brown Todd

  A president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in furtherance of his core constitutional powers. A president is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official actions. A president has no immunity from prosecution for any unofficial actions. [...] In a 6-3 decision divided on ideological lines, the Supreme Court held that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for actions that are within the president’s “core constitutional powers.” A former president is therefore entitled to a presumption of immunity for all official acts, with no immunity conferred for unofficial acts. [...] The Supreme Court’s broad grant of immunity creates the possibility for a president to purposely use the powers of the office in ways that have traditionally been shunned, which could indirectly―or directly―affect the country’s markets and economy.

• [PDF] 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) - Supreme Court

  Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15. (3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Alt­ hough Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predi­ cated on the President’s