We will hear argument this morning in case 23-939, Trump v. United States.

Mr. Sauer?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution,

there can be no presidency as we know it.

For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official

acts. The framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty.

If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he

leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision-making precisely when

bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail

and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office.

The implications of the court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case.

Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding

or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in

Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike?

Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country

illegally for his border policies.

The answer to all these questions is no.

Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or

tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure.

The original meaning of the executive vesting clause, the framers understanding and intent,

an unbroken historical tradition spanning 200 years, and policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers,

all counsel against it.

...