In Trump v United States, The Supreme Court held that President Trump could not be criminally prosecuted for his official acts. The Supreme Court was determining whether President Trump could be prosecuted for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the November 2020 election. President Trump was indicted for conspiring to overturn the election by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the election results.
The Supreme Court concluded that the President has absolute immunity for his official acts, those falling within the specifically granted constitutional powers. The President also has “at least a presumptive immunity” from criminal prosecution for his acts that are “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, unless the government can show that the criminal prosecution would pose no danger of intrusion to the executive branch.
This conclusion was based on the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution. The court reasoned that if they did not give the president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official conduct, then the President would often be chilled from taking the action that would be necessary as a part of his responsibilities. However, the President does not have immunity for unofficial acts.
The Supreme Court offered some guidance on evaluating whether acts are official or unofficial, and other considerations in a presidential immunity case. For example, the Supreme Court explained that in determining whether the conduct was official or unofficial, the lower courts cannot inquire into the President’s motives, or call an act unofficial just because it violates a generally applicable law. The government can also not use evidence of official acts, where the President has immunity, to prove unofficial acts.
The Supreme Court then explained that President Trump has absolute immunity for his actions with the head of the Department of Justice, and presumptive immunity for actions with the Vice President. The other claims were left to the lower court to decide based on a further factual analysis of whether the acts were official or unofficial.
This Supreme Court case received a lot of public attention. The opinion was decided on July 1, 2024. At a time before the coming election that would again involve President Trump, many people and organizations wondered how this would affect the Presidency in the future.
The New York State Bar Association expressed their concern with how the President could now weaponize the Department of Justice for political objectives without facing the deterrent of criminal prosecution. This may lead to the abuse of the President’s power. The President’s relationship with the Department of Justice and the prohibition of looking into the President’s motives when considering whether an act is official or unofficial is also a First Amendment concern. The President could prosecute members of the press because of disagreements for what they print without worrying about repercussions.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called this decision a dangerous precedent that puts presidents above the law. The ACLU explained that no president before President Trump had argued that they were absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. That it was common understanding that no such immunity exists. This decision means that a President can escape criminal accountability for blatantly criminal acts, no matter how corrupt. Ultimately, the ACLU called the new decision on presidential immunity a “loaded weapon for future presidents.”
President Trump called the Supreme Court case a “big win for our Constitution and democracy,” as reported by NBC news.
President Trump, since taking office again in January 2025, has issued a lot of executive orders, some of which have been temporarily stopped through court orders. One judge has said that the Trump administration has openly defied court orders, while the White House has said that the President’s acts were completely lawful. Based on President Trump’s actions in the second term, the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision will likely receive a lot of attention and litigation.
Citations:
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).
Fabio Bertoni, Trump v. United States: The Chilling Effects of Potential Presidential Immunity, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n, (Sept. 6. 2024), https://nysba.org/trump-v-united-states-the-chilling-effects-of-potential-presidential-immunity/.
David Cole, Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Blank Check to Break the Law, Am. Civ. Liberties Union, (July 3, 2024), https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-grants-trump-future-presidents-a-blank-check-to-break-the-law.
Trump Calls Supreme Court Ruling on Immunity a ‘Big Win’, NBC News, (July 1, 2024), https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-calls-supreme-court-ruling-on-immunity-a-big-win-214008389760.
Kayla Epstein, Legal Showdown Looms as Trump Tests Limits of Presidential Immunity, BBC, (Feb 12, 2025, 8:00 AM), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70kd686k2do.
Recent Comments