This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin. The district court rejected respondent’s claims, correctly recognizing that former Presidents are not above the law and are accountable for their violations of federal criminal law while in office. Respondent’s appeal of the ruling rejecting his immunity and related claims, however, suspends the trial of the charges against him, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024. It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected. Respondent’s claims are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them. The Court should grant a writ of certiorari before judgment to ensure that it can provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants, just as it did in United States v Nixon.

Precedent supports expeditious action. When the government sought certiorari before judgment in United States v Nixon, a case presenting similarly consequential issues of presidential privilege, the Court granted the petition and resolved the constitutional question expeditiously so that trial could begin as scheduled. There, the district court overseeing one of the Watergate cases had scheduled trial to begin on September 9, 1974. On May 24, 1974, the Special Prosecutor sought certiorari before judgment following the district court’s denial of former President Nixon’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking Oval Office recordings. The Court granted certiorari a week later and set the case for argument on July 8, 1974. The decision issued 16 days later, and trial began in the fall of 1974. This case warrants similar action. As in Nixon, ‘the public importance of the issues presented and the need for their prompt resolution’ merit this Court’s intervention now, without awaiting the completion of appellate proceedings. And as in Nixon, that is true even though the district court correctly denied respondent’s presidential-immunity and related double jeopardy claims. While no precedent supports respondent’s claim as a former President to criminal immunity, the government acknowledges that this Court has not addressed a comparable claim. And this is a quintessential example of ‘an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court.’