Return to Answer

This was not already understood. This is new law. And it was contested law. As the majority highlights, "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized" (p. 32), and the "Government for its part takes a similarly broad view, contending that the President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action" (p. 34). It's also different law than the District Court and D.C. Circuit applied in this case so far.

This was not already understood. This is new law. And it was contested law. It's also different law than the District Court and D.C. Circuit applied in this case so far.

You are asking about Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) (decided on July 1, 2024, the same day as this Q&A, as the final decided case of the October 2023 term).

These judgments are meant to speak for themselves, and they do have a fairly readable "syllabus" to avoid having to read 100+ pages.

You are asking about Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the final decided case of October Term 2023 (decided on July 1, 2024, the same day as this Q&A).

These judgments are meant to speak for themselves, and they do include a fairly readable "syllabus" to avoid having to read 100+ pages.

You say you "thought we expected them to answer is what counts as an official act, and whether the actions he's being accused of are included." But look at the understanding of the question presented (as in the grant of certiorori, and identically by both Donald Trump and the United States in their briefs):

The courts below did not divide the acts into official and unofficial acts, nor did they give the Government a chance to justify the piercing of any presumptive immunity. This is because the law as they understood it did not require that analysis to be conducted.

You say you "thought we expected them to answer is what counts as an official act, and whether the actions he's being accused of are included." But look at the question presented (as phrased in the grant of certiorori and identically by both Donald Trump and the United States in their briefs):