Share all sharing alternatives for: Trump’s lawyer states he can not be prosecuted. Ns asked 16 legal professionals if it is true.

chairman Donald Trump and his wife Melania trump on may 28, 2019, in Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan. Charly Triballeau-Pool/Getty images
chairman Trump’s lawyer suggested in a federal court ~ above Wednesday morning that he might not be prosecuted because that a crime even if he shot someone in wide daylight on 5th Avenue.

Attorneys because that Trump do the dispute during one appeals court case versus Manhattan ar Attorney Cy Vance, who is search Trump’s taxation returns as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

You are watching: Can a president be prosecuted after leaving office

The doctrine that a sitting president is immune from criminal indictment or prosecution is no new. The department of Justice has actually a ancient policy, outlined by the Office of legal Counsel, that a sit president cannot be charged through a federal crime.

Special counsel Robert Mueller famously invoked this plan (to be clear, it’s a policy, no law) once he summarized the outcomes of his Russia investigation. “The special counsel’s office is component of the room of Justice,” Mueller said, “and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president v a crime was, therefore, no an alternative we could consider.”

Back in May, after ~ the Mueller report was released, I got to out come 16 legit experts and asked if this policy is constitutional. More to the point, i asked if the chairman of the United states is, in fact, over the law?

Their complete responses, edited for clarity and also length, room below.

Here is Trump"s lawyer, wilhelm Consovoy, telling Judge Denny Chin the if Trump were to shoot someone on fifth avenue, he can not be criminally investigated if in office.Very regular argument.

— Erick Fernandez (
ErickFernandez) October 23, 2019
Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University

Mueller is faithfully adhering to DOJ policy, however the DOJ policy is simply plain wrong. Mueller claims that a president can be investigated however neither indicted no one accused. And also his discussion for no accusing that of a crime is that it would certainly be “unfair” to accuse someone that does not have actually a courtroom come protest his or her innocence.

But the is fully absurd: The chairman doesn’t have a courtroom come vindicate his innocence only due to the fact that the DOJ has chose that his office provides him immune indigenous indictment in the an initial place. It’s a piece of circular reasoning that gets rid of the chairman from the scope of usually applicable criminal laws.

If the president were to walk a violent commonwealth crime, it would certainly be absurd because that the DOJ to continue to be silent on the matter simply due to the fact that the president can not be charged.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, regulation professor, Stetson University

As the redacted Mueller report make clear, the one-of-a-kind counsel’s office did not exonerate president Trump on the problem of obstruction that justice, but the office might not accuse a sitting president under regulating DOJ rules.

To it is in clear, there is nothing in the structure that claims that a sitting president can not be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates the the president is not above the law. If commonwealth prosecutors refuse to host the president to the exact same legal standard as any other citizen, state attorneys general could certainly charge a president with a state crime with enough evidence.

Paul Butler, legislation professor, Georgetown University

The inquiry is irrelevant, in terms of the factor anyone would treatment at this minute in history. President Trump will never ever be indicted while the is in office. Any type of federal prosecutor is bound by the department of justice guidelines. So that ain’t gonna happen.

Even if, to usage Trump’s very own example, the shot who on 5th Avenue, the just remedy would be for the chairman to it is in impeached by the House, convicted and removed native office by the Senate, and only climate prosecuted in criminal court.

Mueller made clean that the round is in Congress’s court. If over there is no impeachment, that’s a politics crisis, no a constitutional one.

Joshua Dressler, law professor, Ohio State University

Can the chairman be indicted? The answer come the question is and will stay unknown unless and until the DOJ interpretation of the structure (namely, that a sitting president can not be indicted) is experiment in the courts.

As the DOJ interpretation has actually not varied regardless that the political party of the president, it is reasonable for us to relocate past that question. The question(s) currently are: 1) will certainly the chairman be impeached and convicted the impeachable offenses? and also 2) will the president, after that leaving office, be indicted for any kind of crimes he has actually committed or will commit in the future?

Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University

The current view of the DOJ, based upon repeated opinions all set by the OLC, is that a sitting president can not be indicted, let alone prosecuted. Under the old independent counsel statute, it was feasible for an elevation counsel (like Kenneth Starr) to come to a different conclusion and seek one indictment.

For a one-of-a-kind counsel appointed in ~ the Justice room itself, as Mueller was, an indictment is off the table unless and also until the attorney general or the OLC will a brand-new conclusion on the constitution issues.

Since the courts would not have actually an opportunity to sweet in ~ above this question until a legal proceeding is initiated, it is unlikely that us will acquire a judicial opinion top top this concern until the justice Department transforms its mind.

Of course, also if the lawyer general involved the conclusion the a sit president can be indicted together a constitution matter, there would still be the possibility of a president, as the chef executive, simply directing Justice department attorneys no to seek such an indictment or come remove any kind of attorney that attempted to look for one.

It is conceivable that some state prosecutor could attempt to seek an indictment of a sit president, and also that can generate a justice opinion, but the constitutional difficulties with together a relocate are even much more severe than the prospect of a federal indictment.

Miriam Baer, legislation professor, Brooklyn regulation School

I don’t think Mueller’s declare plows any new legal ground concerning obstruction or the capability to accuse a sit president. His statement referrals the report’s conclusion that, provided the DOJ’s plan on presidential indictments, the president might not it is in charged through a crime, even under seal.

Mueller’s statement likewise alludes come an impeachment proceeding (without actually utilizing those words) together the different “process various other than the criminal justice system” where the president could be officially accused “of wrongdoing.” no one of this is yes, really new.

What is important around Mueller’s declare is that it powerfully reframes the problem at a minute when the attorney basic has batted approximately words like “spying” and also where the president and his surrogates have accused FBI agents that “treason.”

Mueller’s short statement reminds the American public why the investigation began and also proceeded in the very first place: Credible evidence overwhelmingly established that a hostile international power attempted to interfere in ours presidential election.

The function of this investigation wasn’t to “get Trump.” Rather, the purpose was to investigate the Russian government’s sustained and multipronged interference in our electoral process. Mueller’s quick statement emphasizes this point repeatedly.

Russia tried to interfere in our election and also to a an extensive degree the succeeded. Come the level this shocking suggest had been obscured by tweets and Trump-friendly testimony, Mueller’s short and plain declare is a valiant effort to reset the conversation and remind the American civilization what is at stake.

Jessica Levinson, legislation professor, Loyola law School

There is nothing in the structure that avoids a sitting president from being indicted. There is naught in can be fried Court opinions that avoids a sit president from gift indicted. All we have is department of Justice plan based mostly on comes to over separation the powers.

On the various other hand, there is critical principle guiding ours legal mechanism that no person is above the law. That principle is fundamentally undercut by the policy that a sitting president is immune from indictment.

Douglas Spencer, legislation professor, university of Connecticut

The law has actually yet come be resolved on the question whether a sitting president have the right to be indicted (by a cool jury) or charged (by a prosecutor) because that actions taken while in office. The closest case is Clinton v. Jones, where the supreme Court hosted that the president was not immune come civil charges because that unofficial acts bring away before the president was sworn in.

In the case of president Trump, Mueller to be investigating criminal behavior concerned official action taken while in office. Therefore the holding of Clinton v. Jones doesn’t directly apply. But in the opinion that Clinton v. Jones, the Court wrote: “when specifying the border of one immunity for acts clearly taken within an official capacity, we have used a practical approach...As ours opinions have actually made clear, immunities room grounded in ‘the nature the the role performed, no the identity of the actor that performed it.’” This argues that there is no ceiling immunity because that presidents whose main acts perhaps break the law.

On the various other hand, the supreme Court did not specify what that is “functional approach” would be; presumably some balance that the country’s require for one undistracted leader, the executive’s volume to do his constitution duties, the separation that powers, and the preeminence of law.

The OLC carried out its own evaluation (in 1973 and also again in 2000) and concluded the the right balance of these interests is come wait until a president pipeline office to record any charges, through impeachment together the proper an approach for accountability in the meantime.

This raises one last important point about Mueller’s comments today. He said, “the unique counsel’s office is component of the room of Justice and by regulation it was bound by the Department policy. Charging the president through a crime was, therefore, not an choice we could consider.”

At times in our country’s history, Congress has delegated investigatory powers to “independent counsels” that were no as very closely bound by DOJ policy as the present system the “special prosecutors.” We may never recognize whether Mueller’s team would have sought one indictment versus Trump in a counterfactual human being where they were no bound through the DOJ’s policy.

Even in the world, though, such an indictment would have been tested by the president, and also the bottom line is that the issue would have actually gone come the can be fried Court.

Diane Marie Amann, regulation professor, college of Georgia

It is a bedrock principle that the us Constitution the no person is above the law. At time this bedrock has actually been subjected to erosion; because that instance, by legitimate doctrines the immunize certain persons, in particular circumstances, from prosecution. The DOJ policy against indicting the president counts on one such doctrine.

Like similar memos prior to it, a 2000 DOJ memorandum break up that, also as the constitution prescribes impeachment as a course for removal, it precludes indictment the a sit president. The 2000 analysis hinged top top a balancing of speculated interests.

Yet one deserve to imagine a set of facts that would upset the balance; say, publicly commission the an act of violence clearly prohibited by federal statute. An especially if impeachment proceedings did not automatically ensue, a recalibration that interests most likely would reach a an outcome different from that in 2000.

The facts available are rather different, the course. Yet the clear constitutional course is the same. Together it has been because the relax in march of Attorney basic William Barr’s letter, therefore, the ball remains in Congress’s court.

See more: What"S The Best Source Of Protein For Muscle Growth, Top 40 High

Frances Hill, law professor, university of Miami

Mueller declared that a president cannot be indicted for a crime while he is in office, yet he did no say the a president can not be hosted accountable for his actions while that is in office.

Mueller, in effect, concluded that removal of a chairman from office is not, as the regulation is currently understood, a matter that have the right to be addressed under criminal law. If one asks this question as a general matter of law without referral to a particular case, the present state the the legislation on the indictment of sit president is undecided due to the fact that it has actually been addressed only in a DOJ memorandum and also has never ever been litigated. The result of any type of such legal action would rely on the facts of a particular case.

The case of a president who murders someone while that is in office would develop a more searching evaluation than that prepared based on other facts. In the current case, the is crucial to remember that an indictment because that a criminal violation is no the only means of stop a sitting president accountable for criminal activity or for other abuses that his office.

As Mueller provided today and in the complete report, the Constitution provides a different procedure for removal. Mueller again proclaimed that if it had actually been possible to conclude that the present president committed no crimes, the report would have so stated. Mueller and his team to be unable to conclude the the president had committed no crime and detailed this in the report.

In this case engulfing the country, it is i can not accept to learn that not every one of the present members that Congress have actually read the publicly available, redacted variation of the Mueller report. That is time for voters to demand that their representative perform their jobs. The is additionally important the the conference investigations into concerns not handle in the Mueller report continue.

This is particularly urgent in reference to worries of national security and the president’s duty under the “take treatment clause” of short article II that the constitution to defend the United states from interference from foreign countries.

The voters that will decide the politics future of present officeholders — and much larger questions about democracy and civil liberties and national security also — need to recognize as lot as feasible about the president’s discharge the his constitutionally assigned duties.