Can A President Face Trial?

The question of whether a sitting president can be tried in a court of law has been a subject of debate and interpretation of the Constitution. While the Constitution does not explicitly address presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has absolute immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. This has led to discussions about the scope of official acts and the potential impact of criminal prosecution on a president's ability to govern. The Department of Justice's position is that a sitting president should not be indicted or prosecuted while in office, but rather impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. The issue of presidential immunity has gained significant attention, especially with recent investigations and litigation involving former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden.

Presidential immunity from prosecution

The concept of presidential immunity from prosecution in the United States is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or any federal statute. The idea has evolved over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II. The Supreme Court has ruled that the president has immunity from civil damages actions for their official acts, which fall within the “outer perimeter" of their duties. This means that a president who acts within their authority is generally immune from civil lawsuits based on those actions.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the president can be sued for their private acts, both before and during their presidency. For example, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled that President Bill Clinton was not protected from a sexual harassment lawsuit based on conduct before he was president. This ruling established that a sitting president could be sued for unofficial acts.

In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". This ruling sparked controversy, with some arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent, granting presidents a "blank check" to break the law. However, it's important to note that the ruling only applies to official acts, and presidents can still be held accountable through other means, such as impeachment and removal from office.

The issue of presidential immunity from prosecution is complex and has been the subject of ongoing debate and interpretation by legal scholars and the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has ruled on specific cases, the full extent of presidential immunity is still evolving and subject to interpretation.

Criminal prosecution as an incentive

The threat of criminal prosecution has long been considered an important incentive to prevent presidents from breaking the law. However, this incentive has been significantly weakened by the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States (2024), which granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and presumptive immunity for other official acts, leaving them vulnerable to prosecution only for unofficial acts. This ruling has been criticised for setting a dangerous precedent that suggests the president is above the law.

The concept of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has evolved over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II. The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States is based on the argument that criminal prosecution of a sitting president would distract them from their official duties and potentially lead to policy changes aimed at currying favour with the public. This decision aligns with the longstanding tradition that a president who acts within their authority is generally immune from lawsuits based on their official duties, as established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982).

Despite the presumptive immunity granted by the Supreme Court, it is important to note that former presidents are not absolutely immune from criminal liability. This means that a president can still be investigated and potentially prosecuted for criminal acts after they leave office. In the case of Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that presidential immunity does not extend to lawsuits over matters that occurred before the president took office. This ruling allowed for a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton based on conduct before he became president.

While the threat of criminal prosecution may have been diminished as an incentive for presidential behaviour, other forms of accountability remain. Congress, for example, has powers of oversight, lawmaking, and impeachment that can be used to check even a rogue president. Additionally, the courts can still enjoin illegal presidential behaviour and require presidents to testify or produce documents in criminal cases, as seen in United States v. Nixon.

The issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is a complex and evolving topic, and it remains to be seen how it will be addressed in the future, especially given the ongoing investigations and litigation involving former President Donald Trump and his actions while in office.

Supreme Court precedent

The Supreme Court has ruled on the immunity of presidents from civil and criminal liability in several cases. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their official duties. This decision was based on precedent finding immunity for certain officials. The Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald has been interpreted by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to mean that a sitting president should not be indicted or prosecuted while in office, as it would distract the president from their official duties and may cause them to change policies to curry favour with the public.

In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Supreme Court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. This case involved a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton based on conduct before he became president. The Supreme Court held that presidential immunity generally does not extend to lawsuits over matters that predate the president taking office.

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. This case involved former President Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from being investigated for any crimes committed while in office. The Supreme Court's decision in this case has been criticised for setting a dangerous precedent that presidents are above the law and granting them a "'blank check' to break the law".

The Supreme Court's rulings on presidential immunity have evolved over time and are based on an interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, as the Constitution does not directly address this issue. The legal doctrine of presidential immunity dates back to the 1860s, with the first suit brought directly against a president being Mississippi v. Johnson (1867). The Supreme Court's decisions on presidential immunity have significant implications for accountability and the balance of powers between the executive and judicial branches of the US government.

Impeachment and conviction

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and convict a sitting president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States. The House of Representatives can impeach a party with a simple majority of the House members present. This triggers a federal impeachment trial in the United States Senate, which can vote by a two-thirds majority to convict an official, removing them from office.

The Senate can also, with just a simple-majority vote, bar an individual convicted in a Senate impeachment trial from holding federal office in the future. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The President is constitutionally prevented from granting a pardon to impeached and convicted persons.

The Supreme Court has said that the president can be sued for his private acts, and most people believe that this includes acts committed before and during his presidency. The court has also said that the president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for all his official acts and that it extends to the outer rim of his official acts. The legal doctrine of presidential immunity dates back to the 1860s. However, the issue has gained significant attention in recent years, especially with the case of former President Donald Trump, who became the first former president convicted of criminal charges.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that it should not indict a sitting president, much less prosecute them while in office. Instead, it is likely more proper for the House of Representatives to impeach and the Senate to convict a sitting president. Then, the DOJ could begin its criminal prosecution. This process would avoid consuming the sitting president's time with a criminal case.

Presidential immunity and subpoenas

The concept of presidential immunity has evolved through Supreme Court interpretations of Article II of the US Constitution, which does not directly address immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. The term "presidential immunity" is misleading as it does not imply total immunity from civil or criminal liability. Instead, it refers to the principle that a president acting within their authority is generally immune from lawsuits based on that authority.

The Supreme Court has held that the president can be sued for private acts and that the judiciary can hold presidents liable for these private actions. For example, in Clinton v. Jones, the Court held that President Bill Clinton was not protected from a sexual harassment lawsuit based on conduct before he took office. This case established that criminal subpoenas do not impair the Executive's ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions.

In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court did not resolve whether a sitting president could face criminal proceedings while in office. However, the Court recognised that courts may require presidents to testify or produce documents in criminal cases. In this case, President Nixon was compelled to turn over tape recordings of conversations with his advisers, despite his argument of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court has also addressed presidential immunity in Trump v. Vance, holding that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not prevent a district attorney from subpoenaing a sitting president. The Court rejected the argument that criminal subpoenas would unduly distract the president, impose a stigma on the presidency, or lead to harassment by state prosecutors.

While the Supreme Court has granted immunity to President Trump for a range of criminal conduct committed while in office, it is important to note that this immunity only applies to official acts taken as president. The Court emphasised that its decision did not mean presidents are absolutely immune from criminal liability after leaving office.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that a sitting president should not be indicted or prosecuted while in office, but this is based on structural intuitions rather than a clear constitutional directive. The DOJ suggests that impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate is a more appropriate process for holding a sitting president accountable.

Frequently asked questions