The President Is Not a King
A foundational principle of our democracy is that everyone — from an ordinary citizen to the president — must follow the law. The King of England, against whom the Founders rebelled, was above the law. It was considered beneath his dignity to subject him to legal process — for example, to allow him to be sued or to require him to give testimony in court. The Founders purposefully and carefully rejected this approach, and designed our constitutional system with a core principle in mind: the president is not a king. He, like every American, must obey the law. This is what makes our democracy a “government of laws, and not of men.”
Again and again, President Trump and his representatives have told state and federal courts, state and federal law enforcement, and Congress that the president is not subject to the laws that apply to every other American and that he can’t be held accountable. President Trump is playing a shell game: whenever one entity tries to hold him accountable, he insists that only another entity can do so, but he then turns around and claims that the second entity also has no power over him, either. When these arguments are taken together, it becomes clear that the Trump administration believes that no one can hold the president accountable for breaking the law.
President Trump has attempted to claim the powers of a king by placing himself above the law. Read more about our theory in our recent Lawfare explainer, and see below for a detailed list of instances where Trump has attempted to place the presidency above the law.
Protect Democracy continues to fight President Trump’s shell game in the media, in court, and by urging Congress to pass legislation reaffirming that the president, like every other American, must obey the law.
Presidential Accountability Project
- We’re collaborating with Republicans for the Rule of Law on the Presidential Accountability Project, and releasing ads online and on Fox & Friends. See our most recent videos, including about President Trump’s claim of “total authority,” here.
Federal amicus practice:
- We represented 20 Republican legal experts, former officials, and former members of Congress in filing an amicus brief in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn in the D.C. Circuit. The brief uses historical evidence to demonstrate that the Founders gave Congress and courts the power to compel the president (and by extension his aides) to comply with subpoenas.
- Urging the full court to rehear Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of 96 former Cabinet officials, members of Congress, and other high-ranking executive branch officials who are concerned that the court’s recent decision would eliminate congressional oversight and upset the careful checks and balances on which our Constitution depends.
- And we represented 37 former Republican members of Congress, former officials from Republican administrations, and legal experts in filing an amicus brief in Trump v. Vance in the Supreme Court. The brief explains that the president, like all Americans, must follow the law — including complying with legitimate criminal investigations — and that the Constitution provides no support for the president’s claim to absolute immunity.
State amicus practice:
- We represented law professors who filed an amicus brief 20 years ago in Clinton v. Jones in filing similar briefs in two key state court cases where President Trump claimed he was immune from investigation: Zervos v. Trump and N.Y. v. Trump (the Trump Foundation case).
President Trump Playing a Shell Game to Elevate Presidency Above the Law
One of this nation’s most important founding principles is that ours is “a government of laws, and not of men.” The Founders rejected the English model of a king who could do no wrong and stood above the law. Instead, they adopted a system under which every American—from an ordinary citizen to the president —must comply with the law. One recurring feature of the Trump presidency has been the rejection of this founding principle. President Trump and his representatives have repeatedly argued that he is not subject to the law—rather, it is subject to him.
This argument that the president is above the law takes two related forms. First, President Trump claims an “absolute right” to control federal law enforcement, including directing it against his perceived enemies and shielding his friends and allies (and even himself). Second, he contends that he cannot be held accountable by anything or anyone.
Trump’s Impeachment Exemplifies This Strategy
Trump’s impeachment provided a clear example of how he and his attorneys are playing a shell game with Congress, the courts, and the public. President Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly resisted other traditional forms of presidential accountability and emphasized impeachment as the main check on presidential abuses of power. For example, when claiming complete immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation at both the federal and state level for both official and unofficial actions, President Trump argues that the proper check on his authority is Congress’s power to impeach.
But when Congress moves to use its impeachment powers as a check on the president, President Trump then systematically attempts to undermine the impeachment power. First, he refuses to provide evidence in response to congressional subpoenas or in any way cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and claims that his advisors are absolutely immune from subpoena. Next, he claims that impeachment would be improper when there was no “witness with actual knowledge” that could testify as to the president’s actions and that Congress should have gone to court to enforce its subpoenas. Next, when Congress does go to court, the Justice Department argues that the courts are powerless to intervene in an interbranch dispute and that the only remedy is the impeachment power (and unfortunately, thus far that argument has prevailed). Finally, in impeachment proceedings, President Trump’s lawyers argue that he cannot be impeached for declining to respond to congressional subpoenas but instead only for “crime” or “crime-like” offenses, which, of course, elsewhere he has also suggested he is incapable of doing when exercising his official powers because Article II gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”
President Trump’s arguments—if accepted—would dismantle the Constitution’s separation of powers. The impeachment power would be left as the primary check on presidential power but it would be hollowed out by Congress’s inability to investigate whether the president has committed an impeachable offense. This is the result that President John Quincy Adams noted would make a “mockery” of the separation of powers. And when that gutting of the impeachment power is combined with President Trump’s view—outlined below—that he’s accountable in no other forum, the result is an autocratic form of government where the president is entirely unaccountable to any law or any other branch of government. As a result, if President Trump’s arguments are accepted, the only remaining check on presidential power will be an election in which the president can abuse his powers and break the law in order to gain an electoral advantage.
Instances of President Trump Claiming Immunity
The below list collects and documents examples of the presidential immunity claimed by President Trump—that is, immunity from accountability and oversight. Time and again, President Trump, his representatives, his personal lawyers, and lawyers for the government have claimed that the president is immune from oversight, investigation, and inquiry.
Each example documented below, standing alone, might seem like a narrow or technical argument that does not go much beyond the positions taken by prior presidents. But taken together, a more alarming picture emerges from which two conclusions must be drawn. First, President Trump and his lawyers do not believe that anyone—not Congress; not federal, state, and local law enforcement; not federal and state courts—can investigate his actions or hold him accountable. Second, President Trump and his lawyers are attempting to cover up the extreme nature of their arguments by engaging in a kind of shell game with federal courts and Congress.
- Ben Berwick, Jamila Benkato, Cameron Kistler, The President’s Legal Shell Game to Avoid Accountability, Lawfare (Mar. 20, 2020)
- Julian Davis Mortenson, What Two Words in the Constitution Actually Mean, The Atlantic (Jun. 2, 2019)
Click here to view a PDF of this page.
Trump v. Vance: No One Is Above the Law
President Trump and his lawyers claim that the president is immune from not just indictment and prosecution, but even routine document requests as part of a legitimate criminal investigation. It’s part of his larger argument for absolute presidential immunity. But that’s not consistent with what the Founders thought about presidential immunity — and in fact, it is a radical departure from the fundamental founding principle that the law applies equally to every American.
In response to this dangerous argument, 37 former Republican members of Congress, former officials in Republican administrations, and legal experts filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in Trump v. Vance. The brief argues that the president, like all Americans, must follow the law — including complying with legitimate criminal investigations. The brief includes examples of numerous past presidents who answered interrogatories, sat for depositions, and otherwise gave evidence in criminal and civil cases.
Vance concerns a subpoena issued by a grand jury called by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance to accounting firm Mazars USA. The president has intervened to assert a total immunity from investigations that so much as touch his affairs. The district court and Second Circuit ruled against him. The case is an important test of the President’s claim that he is immune from criminal investigation — but also a critical test of his larger theory of absolute immunity from accountability.
- Robert Barnes, Trump’s bid to shield tax returns, finances, broad claims of presidential immunity head to Supreme Court, Washington Post (May 11, 2020)
- Editorial Board, High court takes up a runaway presidency, Boston Globe (May 11, 2020)
- George Conway, George Conway: No one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is about to teach that lesson, Washington Post (May 8, 2020)
- Michael Gartland, Republicans side with DA Vance over Trump financial record showdown, Daily News (Mar. 2, 2020)
Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn: The President Is Not Immune from Subpoena
President Trump insists that the president and his advisors, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, are immune from being compelled to provide documents and testimony to Congress or the courts. But that’s not consistent with what the Founders thought about presidential immunity.
Historical evidence shows that the Founders believed that (1) every person who is competent to give evidence may be subpoenaed; (2) the King is the only exception; and (3) a president is not a King. In fact, the Founders omitted any reference to presidential “immunity” from the text of the Constitution. Based on the historical record, it’s clear that the president – and his current and former senior aides — are not immune from congressional subpoena. Protect Democracy represented 20 Republican legal experts, former officials, and former members of Congress who laid out the compelling historical evidence in an amicus brief to the D.C. Circuit in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn.
Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit ruled in McGahn that courts don’t have the power to enforce congressional subpoenas. This decision, if upheld, would effectively destroy Congress’s ability to get information from the executive branch, making it difficult for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch and to hold the president accountable if he breaks the law or abuses his powers.
Urging the full court to rehear the McGahn case, Protect Democracy, with Arnold & Porter, filed an amicus brief on behalf of a bipartisan group of 96 former Senators, Representatives, and executive branch officials who are concerned that the court’s recent decision would eliminate congressional oversight and upset the careful system of checks and balances on which our Constitution depends. Amici supported the House Judiciary Committee’s request that the D.C. Circuit rehear the case before a full court — and overturn the panel’s erroneous decision. The D.C. Circuit accepted our brief and immediately granted rehearing, without asking for the defendant’s response. The court hears oral argument on April 28, 2020.
- Mark Sherman, Trump counting on Supreme Court to block probes, lawsuits, Associated Press News, (May 21, 2020)
- Harper Neidig, Former DOJ officials back House case for McGahn subpoena, The Hill, (Apr. 16, 2020)
- Elizabeth Wydra, Oversight Scares Trump as much as COVID-19, Roll Call (Apr. 15, 2020)
- Tom Coleman, A court must decide: Does the law still apply to everyone, the president included?, The Fulcrum (Mar. 25, 2020)
- Donald Ayer, Tom Coleman and Christine Todd Whitman, Op-Ed: Will the Supreme Court Crown Trump as King?, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 2, 2020)
- Harper Neidig, Former GOP lawmakers, officials ask court to enforce House subpoena on McGahn, The Hill (Dec. 16, 2019)
- Josh Gerstein, Trump’s subpoena-defying claims legally flawed, ex-GOP lawmakers argue, Politico (Dec. 16, 2019)
The President Is Not Immune from Lawsuits in State Court
President Trump’s lawyers have argued that the Constitution makes the president completely immune from being sued in state court even when the lawsuit concerns pre-office conduct. The president first made this argument in Zervos v. Trump, which concerned allegations that President Trump defamed a woman who accused him of groping her. He reprised the arguments in People of the State of New York v. Trump, which concerned allegations that the Trump Foundation violated New York charities law.
These arguments are wrong as a matter of constitutional law. In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court made clear that presidential immunity only extends to the president’s official acts, not his unofficial conduct. Of course, President Trump could not take an official presidential act before assuming office.
Protect Democracy has filed amicus briefs in both of the aforementioned cases reiterating the argument made in Clinton v. Jones and arguing that the president should not be immune from suit in state court. This is the first time this argument has been litigated.
Zervos v. Trump Documents
NY v. Trump Foundation Documents
- Court’s Decision in Motion to Dismiss (filed Nov. 23, 2018)
- Amicus Brief of Law Professors (filed Oct. 5, 2018)
- Veronica Stracqualursi and Athena Jones, Judge denies Trump’s request to dismiss Summer Zervos defamation case, CNN.com (Nov. 19, 2019)
- Dan M. Clark, Even as President, Trump May Face Civil Suit in NY Courts, Law Professors Aim to Argue, New York Law Journal (Oct. 9, 2018)
- Justin Florence, Why the Summer Zervos Lawsuit Against President Trump Matters, TIME (Mar. 22, 2018)
Partnership with Republicans for the Rule of Law
As a part of Protect Democracy’s work pushing back on President Trump’s claims of total immunity from accountability, Protect Democracy and Republicans for the Rule of Law have partnered on the Presidential Accountability Project to fight against arbitrary uses of presidential power and to uphold the laws of the constitution. This project aims to expose the ways in which President Trump’s tactics endanger the very future of our democracy.
In an effort to explain why Trump’s tactics pose a threat, Protect Democracy and Republicans for the Rule of Law are releasing ads and digital content aimed at exposing President Trump’s efforts to evade oversight and accountability. So far, the ads have run on Fox & Friends, and have received strong coverage including claiming the #1 trending story spot on Apple News, and features in The Hill and The Huffington Post.
See our ads below:
The videos have amassed over 500,000 combined views.
For more information on Republicans for the Rule of Law and the Presidential Accountability Project, please visit their website here.
- Ed Mazza, GOP Group Exposes ‘King’ Trump’s Legal Shell Game in Blistering New Fox News Ad, HUFFPOST (May 13, 2020)
- Gino Spocchia, Republican group airs anti-Trump advert on Fox News, INDEPENDENT (May 12, 2020)
- Jeffery Martin, Republican Group Releases Ad Encouraging Americans to Hold Trump Accountable For Abusing His Power, Newsweek (May 11, 2020)
- Ed Mazza, GOP Group Dethrones ‘King’ Trump Over Coronavirus Power Grab In Fox News Ad, HUFFPOST (Apr. 16, 2020)
- Rebecca Klar, Conservative Group Accuses Trump of Thinking He’s King, The Hill (Apr. 16, 2020)
- Jason Lemon, Anti-Trump GOP Group Releases Ad Featuring Wisconsin Republican Voters Saying Their Party Put Their Lives At Risk, Newsweek (Apr. 14, 2020)
- Ed Mazza, New Ad To Run On Fox News Warns Trump: ‘Everyone Is Accountable. Even You.’, HUFFPOST (Apr. 8, 2020)
The Founders on Why Presidential Power Is Not Absolute
Below are links to historical documents and relevant research that shows the Founders believed 1) that every person who is competent to give evidence can be subpoenaed, and 2) that kings are the only exception, and 3) that a president is not a king. These sources and more were cited in our McGahn amicus brief.
- Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws 188 (10th Ed. S. Crowder, C. Ware, and T. Payne, London 1773)
- Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, On the Federal Government I, II, III, Independent Gazetteer (Sept. 26–29, 1787)
- Annals of Cong. 493 (1792)
- Letter from George Washington, President, to the U.S. House of Reps. (Mar. 30, 1796)
- Letter from Charles Lee, U.S. Att’y Gen., to George Washington, President (Mar. 26, 1796)
- Letter from James McHenry, U.S. Sec’y of War, to George Washington (Mar. 26, 1796)
- Thomas Cooper, An Account of the Trial of Thomas Cooper 10 (1800)
- Documents, Accompanying the Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the Official Conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, Telegraphe and Daily Advertiser (Apr. 9, 1804) at 2
- United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14692D) (Marshall, C.J.)
- President James Monroe to George M. Dallas, Feb. 14, 1818, Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Navy), Record Group 125, (Records of General Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry, Microcopy M-272, case 282), National Archives Building
- Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess. 580 (1842)
- H.R. Rep. No. 271 at 1–18 (27th Cong., 3d Sess., 1843)
- H.R. Rep. No. 684 at 4 (29th Cong., 1st Sess., 1846)
- Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America 486-89, 584-85 (New York, Harper & Brothers Publishers 1856)
- A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789–1897 at 2284 (James D. Richardson ed.1896)
- James Wilson, On the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 505, 520 (Chicago, Callaghan & Co. ed. James DeWitt Andrews 1896)
- The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Volume IX 1807–1815 64 (Paul Leicester Ford ed.) (1898)
- Irwin S. Rhodes, What Really Happened to the Jefferson Subpoenas, 60 A.B.A. J. 52, 53 (1974)
- Select Comm. on Pres. Campaign Activities, Appendix to the Hearings of the Select Comm. on Pres. Campaign Activities of the U.S. Sen.: Documents Related to the Select Comm. Hearings, Pt. I, at 740 (1974)
- James K. Polk, 1845–49, Cent. Intelligence Agency (Mar. 19, 2007)
- Louis Fisher, Jefferson and the Burr Conspiracy: Executive Power Against the Law, 45 Presidential Studies Q. 157, 169 (2015)