July 1, 2024
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan issued dissents warning that the 6-3 immunity ruling removed criminal accountability for any president who commits crimes through official channels.
The Court ruled 6-3 on July 1, 2024, with all three liberals dissenting
Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench — reserved for decisions justices find most serious
Sotomayor dissent was 30 pages and used hypotheticals including presidential assassination orders and military coups
Roberts majority embedded a procedural bar: prosecutors cannot use evidence of official acts to prove intent even for unofficial-act crimes
Jackson wrote separately, agreeing with every word of Sotomayor dissent and adding her own structural argument
Nixon v. Fitzgerald 1982 gave presidents civil immunity for official acts; Trump v. United States extended that logic to criminal prosecution
Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Associate Justice, Supreme Court
research
Read Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v. United States at supremecourt.gov
Dissents are how losing legal arguments stay alive. Reading Sotomayor's dissent gives citizens the strongest counterargument to the majority's reasoning, which they can use to evaluate the ruling on its merits rather than politically.
Supreme Court dissents are not law, but they shape future legal arguments. Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v. United States will be the foundation that future lawyers cite when challenging the immunity doctrine in lower courts. Read the dissent directly at supremecourt.gov — it is the last section of the opinion. Sotomayor lays out in clear, direct language what she believes the majority got wrong and why she thinks it creates dangerous precedent. When a justice reads a dissent aloud from the bench — as Sotomayor did — it signals she believes the ruling ranks among the most consequential and wrongly decided cases of her tenure.
civic action
Contact your senators about the Supreme Court Ethics Act
Supreme Court justices face no binding ethics rules and no external enforcement mechanism. Citizens pressing senators on the Supreme Court Ethics Act put concrete stakes on the accountability question.
Contact your two senators at senate.gov to ask their position on the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would impose binding conduct rules on justices and require disclosure of gifts and travel. The 6-3 alignment in the immunity case reflects a confirmation process that critics argue lacks accountability. Ask your senator: Do you support the Supreme Court Ethics Act? If not, what alternative accountability mechanism do you support for Supreme Court justices? Ask for a written response. The Senate Judiciary Committee oversees Supreme Court oversight legislation — note which committee members have spoken publicly about this.
research
Understand how the evidence-use restriction in Roberts' majority opinion affects future prosecutions
The evidence-use restriction in the immunity ruling may matter more than the immunity doctrine itself for future prosecutions. Understanding it gives citizens a more complete picture of what the ruling actually does.
The evidence-use restriction Roberts embedded in the majority opinion means that even unofficial-act prosecutions become harder, because prosecutors cannot reference official presidential conduct to prove a defendant's intent. Read the Brennan Center's analysis of the ruling at brennancenter.org to understand exactly how this restriction would work in practice. The restriction is not just about what acts can be charged — it affects what evidence can be introduced at trial even for acts that are clearly not immune. This is a significant limitation on prosecution that received less media attention than the immunity ruling itself.
research
Track how lower courts are applying the immunity doctrine through SCOTUSblog
Supreme Court rulings create doctrine, but lower courts define its practical scope. Tracking lower court applications of the immunity ruling is the most direct way to understand what the ruling actually means for presidential accountability.
The immunity ruling's practical scope is being defined case-by-case in lower courts right now. Track those rulings through SCOTUSblog at scotusblog.com, which publishes accessible analysis of major executive power cases within hours of decisions. Search for 'presidential immunity' to follow the trail of lower court decisions applying, extending, or limiting the doctrine. This is where the immunity ruling's real-world consequences are being determined — before the Supreme Court takes up any clarifying case.