No Kings Act

no person, including any President, is above the law;

Congress, under the Necessary and Proper Clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, has the authority to determine to which persons the criminal laws of the United States shall apply, including any President;

the Constitution of the United States does not grant to any President any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal prosecution, including for actions committed while serving as President;

in The Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that there must be a difference between the “sacred and inviolable” king of Great Britain and the President of the United States, who “would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace” should his actions violate the laws of the United States;

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia correctly concluded in United States v. Trump, No. 23–257 (TSC), 2023 WL 8359833 (D.D.C. December 1, 2023) that “former Presidents do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office”, that former Presidents “may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office”, and that a “four-year service as Commander in Chief [does] not bestow on [a President] the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens”;

similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correctly affirmed in United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) that “separation of powers doctrine does not immunize former Presidents from federal criminal liability” for their official actions that “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” and acknowledged that the Founding Fathers “stresse[d] that the President must be unlike the “king of Great Britain,” who was “sacred and inviolable.” The Federalist No. 69, at 337–38”;

the Supreme Court of the United States, however, vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and incorrectly declared in Trump v. United States, No. 23–939, 2024 WL 3237603 (U.S. July 1, 2024) that “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and that a President “is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts”, assertions at odds with the plain text of the Constitution of the United States; and

Congress has explicit and broad authority to make exceptions and regulations to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States under clause 2 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution of the United States.

reassert the constitutional authority of Congress to determine the general applicability of the criminal laws of the United States, including to Presidents and Vice Presidents;

clarify that a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress; and

impose certain limitations on the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States to decide questions related to criminal immunity for Presidents and Vice Presidents.

The action shall be filed in the applicable district court of the United States or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction, on the basis that an alleged criminal act was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or on the basis that an alleged criminal act was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President, to (or direct another court of the United States to)—

A plaintiff may bring a civil action under this subsection, and there shall be no other cause of action available.

Only a President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall have standing to bring a civil action under this subsection.

A facial challenge to the constitutionality of any provision of this Act (including this section) may only be brought not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. An as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) may only be brought not later than 90 days after the date of such enforcement or application.

A court of the United States shall presume that a provision of this Act (including this section) or the enforcement or application of any such provision is constitutional unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that such provision or its enforcement or application is unconstitutional.

The civil action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a civil action under this subsection. An appeal may be taken from the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a civil action under this subsection.

In a civil action under this subsection, a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be final and not appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction to declare any provision of this Act (including this section) unconstitutional or to bar or restrain the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) on the ground of its unconstitutionality.