Is a President Above the Law?

Published on LinkedIn: February 18, 2026

The Constitution does not create a law-free office at the top of government.

From the beginning, the presidency was designed as a powerful role operating within — not outside — the legal system.

The Supreme Court has never said the president is categorically beyond the reach of law. To the contrary, it has made clear the rule of law applies even at the highest levels of government.

The Court has said there is only one narrow situation in which a president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution: when he exercises a power that the Constitution gives expressly and exclusively to him and no one else — and only when he uses that power for official purposes.

That immunity exists to protect the functioning of the office, not to shield a president’s misconduct. It is structural, not personal.

This distinction matters. Functional protections exist so that legitimate executive responsibilities can be carried out without constant disruption. They do not convert public office into a source of personal impunity. When that line is crossed, the constitutional order itself is at risk.

The outer boundary is not ambiguous. If a president used the military to assassinate a political opponent, that would be a crime. It would be subject to criminal prosecution just like any other unlawful killing.

And when presidents have escaped accountability for illegal acts, that is not the Constitution’s fault. It is a failure of political will — a failure to enforce the laws that already exist.

Executive power is real and significant. But in America, power does not mean impunity.