Editing President of the United States (section)

== Executive powers ==
{{Main|Powers of the president of the United States}}

{{Quote box|align=right|width=25%|quote=Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed.|source=''[[Nixon v. General Services Administration]]'', '''{{ussc|433|425|1977}}''' ([[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist, J.]], [[Dissenting opinion|dissenting]])}}

The president is head of the executive branch of the federal government and is [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|constitutionally obligated]] to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3 |title=Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution |year=2012 |publisher=Legal Information Institute |access-date=August 7, 2012}}</ref> The executive branch has over four million employees, including the military.<ref name="obamapresidency">{{Cite web |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/executive-branch |title=Executive Branch |date=April 2015 |via=[[NARA|National Archives]] |work=[[whitehouse.gov]] |access-date=January 24, 2020}}</ref>

=== Administrative powers ===

Presidents make [[Political appointments in the United States|political appointments]]. An incoming president may make up to 4,000 upon taking office, 1,200 of which must be [[Advice and consent#United States|confirmed by the U.S. Senate]]. [[Ambassador]]s, members of the [[Cabinet of the United States|Cabinet]], and various [[Officer of the United States|officers]], are among the positions filled by presidential appointment with Senate confirmation.<ref>{{cite web| title=Presidentially Appointed Positions| date=April 14, 2021| url=https://presidentialtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/12/Presidentially-Appointed-Positions.pdf| publisher=[[Partnership for Public Service]]| location=Washington, D.C.| access-date=March 7, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title=Biden Political Appointee Tracker| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2020/biden-appointee-tracker/| newspaper=The Washington Post| access-date=March 7, 2023}}</ref>

The power of a president to fire executive officials has long been a contentious political issue. Generally, a president may remove executive officials at will.<ref>See ''Shurtleff v. United States'', {{ussc|189|311|1903}}; ''[[Myers v. United States]]'', {{ussc|272|52|1926}}.</ref> However, Congress can curtail and constrain a president's authority to fire commissioners of independent regulatory agencies and certain inferior executive officers by [[statute]].<ref>See ''[[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]]'', {{ussc|295|602|1935}} and ''[[Morrison v. Olson]]'', {{ussc|487|654|1988}}, respectively.</ref>

To manage the growing federal bureaucracy, presidents have gradually surrounded themselves with many layers of staff, who were eventually organized into the [[Executive Office of the President of the United States]]. Within the Executive Office, the president's innermost layer of aides, and their assistants, are located in the [[White House Office]].

The president also possesses the power to manage operations of the federal government by issuing various [[Presidential directive|types of directives]], such as [[Presidential proclamation (United States)|presidential proclamation]] and [[executive order]]s. When the president is lawfully exercising one of the constitutionally conferred presidential responsibilities, the scope of this power is broad.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/executive-summary-the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential |title=Executive Summary: The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives |last=Gaziano |first=Todd |date=February 21, 2001 |publisher=The Heritage Foundation |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=January 23, 2018}}</ref> Even so, these directives are subject to [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]] by U.S. federal courts, which can find them to be unconstitutional. Congress can overturn an executive order through legislation.

=== Foreign affairs ===
[[File:President George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev.jpg|thumb|President [[George H. W. Bush]] and Soviet President [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] sign the [[1990 Chemical Weapons Accord]] at the [[White House]]]]

[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Presidential responsibilities|Article II, Section 3, Clause 4]] requires the president to "receive Ambassadors." This clause, known as the Reception Clause, has been interpreted to imply that the president possesses broad power over matters of foreign policy,<ref>''[[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.]]'', {{ussc|299|304|1936}}, characterized the President as the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations," an interpretation [https://fas.org/sgp/eprint/fisher.pdf criticized] by Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress.</ref> and to provide support for the president's exclusive authority to grant [[diplomatic recognition|recognition]] to a foreign government.<ref>''[[Zivotofsky v. Kerry]]'', {{Ussc|576|___|2015|el=no}}.</ref> The Constitution also empowers the president to appoint United States ambassadors, and to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries. Such agreements, upon receiving the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate (by a [[Supermajority|two-thirds majority]] vote), become binding with the force of federal law.

While foreign affairs has always been a significant element of presidential responsibilities, advances in technology since the Constitution's adoption have increased presidential power. Where formerly ambassadors were vested with significant power to independently negotiate on behalf of the United States, presidents now routinely meet directly with leaders of foreign countries.

=== Commander-in-chief ===
[[File:Lincoln O-62 by Gardner, 1862-crop.jpg|thumb|[[Abraham Lincoln]], the 16th president who successfully preserved the [[Union (American Civil War)|Union]] during the [[American Civil War]], with [[Union Army]] general [[George B. McClellan]] and soldiers at [[Antietam National Battlefield|Antietam]] on October 3, 1862]]

One of the most important of executive powers is the president's role as [[Powers of the president of the United States#Commander-in-chief|commander-in-chief]] of the [[United States Armed Forces]]. The power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, but the president has ultimate responsibility for the direction and disposition of the military. The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the president as commander-in-chief has been the subject of much debate throughout history, with Congress at various times granting the president wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/commander-in-chief-clause-ramsey-and-vladeck/clause/25 |title=Common Interpretation: Commander in Chief Clause |last1=Ramsey |first1=Michael |last2=Vladeck |first2=Stephen |website=National Constitution Center Educational Resources (some internal navigation required) |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=May 23, 2017}}</ref> The framers of the Constitution took care to limit the president's powers regarding the military; [[Alexander Hamilton]] explained this in [[Federalist No. 69]]:{{blockquote|The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.{{nbsp}}... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces{{nbsp}}... while that [the power] of the [[Monarchy of Great Britain|British king]] extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which{{nbsp}}... would appertain to the legislature.<ref>[[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton, Alexander]]. [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm ''The Federalist'' #69] (reposting). Retrieved June 15, 2007.</ref> [Emphasis in the original.]|sign=|source=}}

In the modern era, pursuant to the [[War Powers Resolution]], Congress must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual.<ref name="miller-center">{{Cite web |url=http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report |title=The National War Powers Commission Report |last1=Christopher |first1=James A. |last2=Baker, III |date=July 8, 2008 |publisher=The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia |format=PDF |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126165009/http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report |archive-date=November 26, 2010 |access-date=December 15, 2010 |quote=No clear mechanism or requirement exists today for the president and Congress to consult. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 contains only vague consultation requirements. Instead, it relies on reporting requirements that, if triggered, begin the clock running for Congress to approve the particular armed conflict. By the terms of the 1973 Resolution, however, Congress need not act to disapprove the conflict; the cessation of all hostilities is required in 60 to 90 days merely if Congress fails to act. Many have criticized this aspect of the Resolution as unwise and unconstitutional, and no president in the past 35 years has filed a report "pursuant" to these triggering provisions. }}</ref> Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. Presidents have historically initiated the process for going to war,<ref name="tws12novef">{{Cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080107101712/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 7, 2008 |title=The Law: The President's War Powers |date=June 1, 1970 |magazine=Time |access-date=September 28, 2009 }}</ref><ref name="tws8nov102">{{Cite news |last=Mitchell |first=Alison |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html |title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True |date=May 2, 1999 |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=Presidents have sent forces abroad more than 100 times; Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish–American War, World War I and World War II.}}</ref> but critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including [[Theodore Roosevelt]]'s military move into [[Panama]] in 1903,<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Korean War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Vietnam War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> and the invasions of [[Grenada]] in 1983<ref name="tws8nov101">{{Cite news |last=Mitchell |first=Alison |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html |title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True |date=May 2, 1999 |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=President Reagan told Congress of the invasion of Grenada two hours after he had ordered the landing. He told Congressional leaders of the bombing of Libya while the aircraft were on their way.}}</ref> and [[Panama]] in 1989.<ref name="tws8nov100">{{Cite news |last=Gordon |first=Michael R. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1220.html#article |title=U.S. troops move in Panama in effort to seize Noriega; gunfire is heard in capital |date=December 20, 1990 |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=It was not clear whether the White House consulted with Congressional leaders about the military action, or notified them in advance. Thomas S. Foley, the Speaker of the House, said on Tuesday night that he had not been alerted by the Administration.}}</ref>

The amount of military detail handled personally by the president in wartime has varied greatly.<ref>Andrew J. Polsky, ''Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War'' (Oxford University Press, 2012) [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37003 online review]</ref> George Washington, the first U.S. president, firmly established [[civilian control of the military|military subordination under civilian authority]]. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militia to quell the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], a conflict in [[Western Pennsylvania]] involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay an excise tax on spirits. According to historian [[Joseph Ellis]], this was the "first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field", though [[James Madison]] briefly took control of artillery units in [[Burning of Washington|defense of Washington, D.C.]], during the [[War of 1812]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/summer12/george.cfm |title=George Washington and the Evolution of the American Commander in Chief |publisher=The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation}}</ref> [[Abraham Lincoln]] was deeply involved in overall strategy and in day-to-day operations during the [[American Civil War]], 1861–1865; historians have given Lincoln high praise for his strategic sense and his ability to select and encourage commanders such as [[Ulysses S. Grant]].<ref>James M. McPherson, ''Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln As Commander in Chief'' (2009)</ref>

The present-day operational command of the Armed Forces is delegated to the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and is normally exercised through the [[United States Secretary of Defense|secretary of defense]]. The [[chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]] and the [[Combatant Command]]s assist with the operation as outlined in the presidentially approved Unified Command Plan (UCP).<ref name="ucp">{{Cite news |url=http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398 |title=DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011 |date=April 8, 2011 |work=[[United States Department of Defense]] |access-date=February 25, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513070316/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398 |archive-date=May 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{USC|10|164}}</ref><ref>[[Joint Chiefs of Staff]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090416022040/http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=2 About the Joint Chiefs of Staff]. Retrieved February 25, 2013.</ref>

=== Juridical powers and privileges ===
{{Further|List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States}}
{{Update|section|reason=The case [[Trump v. United States (2024)]]|date=July 2024}} 
[[File: P20220408AS-1467 (52067437977).jpg|thumb|President [[Joe Biden]] with his [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] appointee Justice [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]] and (in background) Vice President [[Kamala Harris]] following Brown Jackson's 2022 [[United States Senate]] confirmation]]

The president has the power to nominate [[United States federal judge|federal judges]], including members of the [[United States courts of appeals]] and the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. However, these nominations require [[Advice and consent#United States|Senate confirmation]] before they may take office. Securing Senate approval can provide a major obstacle for presidents who wish to orient the federal judiciary toward a particular ideological stance. When nominating judges to [[United States district court|U.S. district courts]], presidents often respect the long-standing tradition of [[senatorial courtesy]]. Presidents may also grant [[pardon]]s and [[Pardon#Related concepts|reprieves]]. [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned [[Richard Nixon]] a month after taking office. Presidents often grant pardons shortly before leaving office, like when [[Bill Clinton]] pardoned [[Patty Hearst]] on his last day in office; this is often [[Controversy|controversial]].<ref name="tws8nov12">{{Cite news |last=Johnston |first=David |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1224.html |title=Bush Pardons Six in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up' |date=December 24, 1992 |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=But not since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of whether the president was trying to shield officials for political purposes.}}</ref><ref name="tws8nov11">{{Cite news |last=Johnston |first=David |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1224.html |title=Bush Pardons Six in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up' |date=December 24, 1992 |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=The prosecutor charged that Mr. Weinberger's efforts to hide his notes may have 'forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan' and formed part of a pattern of 'deception and obstruction'.{{nbsp}}... In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.}}</ref><ref name="tws8nov10">{{Cite news |last=Eisler |first=Peter |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm |title=Clinton-papers release blocked |date=March 7, 2008 |work=USA Today |access-date=November 8, 2009 |quote=Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library.}}</ref>

Two doctrines concerning executive power have developed that enable the president to exercise executive power with a degree of autonomy. The first is [[executive privilege]], which allows the president to withhold from disclosure any communications made directly to the president in the performance of executive duties. George Washington first claimed the privilege when Congress requested to see [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[John Jay]]'s notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]]. While not enshrined in the Constitution or any other law, Washington's action created the precedent for the privilege. When [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed evidence to Congress during the [[Watergate scandal]], the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'', {{ussc|418|683|1974}}, that executive privilege did not apply in cases where a president was attempting to avoid criminal prosecution. When Bill Clinton attempted to use executive privilege regarding the [[Clinton–Lewinsky scandal|Lewinsky scandal]], the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'', {{ussc|520|681|1997}}, that the privilege also could not be used in civil suits. These cases established the [[Precedent|legal precedent]] that executive privilege is valid, although the exact extent of the privilege has yet to be clearly defined. Additionally, federal courts have allowed this privilege to radiate outward and protect other executive branch employees but have weakened that protection for those executive branch communications that do not involve the president.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/executive_privilege.html |title=Executive Privilege 101 |last=Millhiser, Ian |date=June 1, 2010 |publisher=Center for American Progress |access-date=October 8, 2010 |archive-date=June 9, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100609224239/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/executive_privilege.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The [[state secrets privilege]] allows the president and the executive branch to withhold information or documents from [[Discovery (law)|discovery]] in legal proceedings if such release would harm [[national security]]. Precedent for the privilege arose early in the 19th century when [[Thomas Jefferson]] refused to release military documents in the [[treason]] trial of [[Aaron Burr]] and again in ''[[Totten v. United States]]'' {{ussc|92|105|1876}}, when the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by a former Union spy.<ref>{{cite case |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1537579.html |title=Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan |chapter=Part III |via=FindLaw |access-date=November 29, 2010}}</ref> However, the privilege was not formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until ''[[United States v. Reynolds]]'' {{ussc|345|1|1953}}, where it was held to be a [[common law]] [[Evidence (law)|evidentiary]] privilege.<ref name="ACS">{{Cite web |url=https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/briefs-2007-2011/reforming-the-state-secrets-privilege/ |title=Reforming the State Secrets Privilege |last1=Frost |first1=Amanda |last2=Florence |first2=Justin |year=2009 |publisher=[[American Constitution Society]] |access-date=November 9, 2017}}</ref> Before the [[September 11 attacks]], use of the privilege had been rare, but increasing in frequency.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Weaver |first1=William G. |last2=Pallitto |first2=Robert M. |year=2005 |title=State Secrets and Executive Power |journal=[[Political Science Quarterly]] |volume=120 |issue=1 |pages=85–112 |doi=10.1002/j.1538-165x.2005.tb00539.x |quote=Use of the state secrets privilege in courts has grown significantly over the last twenty-five years. In the twenty-three years between the decision in Reynolds [1953] and the election of Jimmy Carter, in 1976, there were four reported cases in which the government invoked the privilege. Between 1977 and 2001, there were a total of fifty-one reported cases in which courts ruled on invocation of the privilege. Because reported cases represent only a fraction of the total cases in which the privilege is invoked or implicated, it is unclear precisely how dramatically the use of the privilege has grown. But the increase in reported cases is indicative of greater willingness to assert the privilege than in the past.}}</ref> Since 2001, the government has asserted the privilege in more cases and at earlier stages of the litigation, thus in some instances causing dismissal of the suits before reaching the merits of the claims, as in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]]'s ruling in ''[[Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.]]''<ref name="ACS" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html |title=Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A. |date=September 8, 2010 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=October 8, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Finn |first=Peter |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090807334.html |title=Suit dismissed against firm in CIA rendition case |date=September 9, 2010 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=October 8, 2010}}</ref> Critics of the privilege claim its use has become a tool for the government to cover up illegal or embarrassing government actions.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/10/obama |title=The 180-degree reversal of Obama's State Secrets position |last=Glenn Greenwald |author-link=Glenn Greenwald |date=February 10, 2009 |website=Salon |access-date=October 8, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege |title=Background on the State Secrets Privilege |date=January 31, 2007 |publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |access-date=October 8, 2010}}</ref>

The degree to which the president personally has [[absolute immunity]] from court cases is contested and has been the subject of several Supreme Court decisions. ''[[Nixon v. Fitzgerald]]'' (1982) dismissed a civil lawsuit against by-then former president Richard Nixon based on his official actions. ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'' (1997) decided that a president has no immunity against civil suits for actions taken before becoming president and ruled that a sexual harassment suit could proceed without delay, even against a sitting president. The 2019 [[Mueller report]] on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election detailed evidence of possible [[obstruction of justice]], but investigators declined to refer [[Donald Trump]] for prosecution based on a [[United States Department of Justice]] policy against indicting an incumbent president. The report noted that impeachment by Congress was available as a remedy. As of October 2019, a case was pending in the federal courts regarding access to personal tax returns in a criminal case brought against Donald Trump by the [[New York County District Attorney]] alleging violations of New York state law.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/10/07/767830713/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-hand-over-8-years-of-tax-returns|title=President Trump Doesn't Need To Release His Tax Returns — For Now|website=[[NPR]]|date=October 7, 2019|access-date=April 28, 2020|last1=Brown|first1=Tanya Ballard}}</ref>

Memoranda from the [[Office of Legal Counsel]] issued in 1973 and 2000 internally prohibit the [[Department of Justice]] from prosecuting a president, which some legal scholars have criticized but others have endorsed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prakash |first1=Saikrishna Bangalore |title=Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents. |journal=[[Texas Law Review]] |date=November 2021 |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=55–113 |url=https://texaslawreview.org/prosecuting-and-punishing-our-presidents/ |access-date=31 March 2023 |ssrn=4039230 |id={{EBSCOhost|154035452|dbcode=a9h}}}}</ref>

In defense against federal criminal prosecution for his [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|alleged 2020 election subversion]], in January 2024, Trump argued to the [[DC Circuit Court of Appeals]] that a president enjoys absolute immunity for criminal acts conducted while in office. The next month, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled against Trump. It was the first time an appeals court had addressed such a presidential immunity matter, since no other sitting or former president had ever been criminally indicted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Claim of Absolute Immunity |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-appeals-court.html |work=The New York Times |date=February 6, 2024|author1=Alan Feuer|author2=Charlie Savage}}</ref>

In ''[[Trump v. United States (2024)|Trump v. United States]]'', on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents were entitled to absolute immunity from exercising core powers enumerated by the Constitution, [[presumption]] of immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was sent back to lower courts to determine which actions in the criminal complaint should be classified as official vs. unofficial.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/02/presidential-immunity-trump-lawsuits|title=What does the immunity ruling mean for Trump's criminal cases?|work= The Guardian}}</ref> The ruling was the first time the courts granted a president criminal immunity.