It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office “established by Law,” as required by the Constitution.

"We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office." - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country.

The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity

Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree.

In this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular.

This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency.

The case concerns the federal indictment of a former President of the United States for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the 2020 election.

For reasons I explain below, I do not join Part III–C of the Court’s opinion. The remainder of the opinion is consistent with my view

If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent

the majority recognizes absolute immunity for “conduct within [the President’s] exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

Ultimately, the majority pays lip service to the idea that “[t]he President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them,”