The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 1, 2024, that former presidents possess absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their core constitutional authority. In a 6-3 decision, the court also established that former presidents are entitled to at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, while no immunity exists for unofficial acts.
The ruling arose from the federal prosecution of Donald Trump, who was charged with four felonies related to alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. The case had been stalled since February 2024, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal after a federal appeals court and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan previously ruled that former presidents lacked such immunity.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the system of separated powers requires an independent executive, meaning Congress cannot criminalize a president's conduct in carrying out constitutional responsibilities. The decision immediately affected allegations regarding Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, which the court found immune. However, the court remanded the case to Judge Chutkan to determine if other allegations—such as Trump's pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence and state officials—constitute official or private acts.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, described the decision as "utterly indefensible," arguing it effectively makes the president "a king above the law." Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority's main holding but argued in a concurrence that prosecutors should still be allowed to use evidence of official acts when prosecuting a president for liable conduct.
The ruling specifically impacts federal prosecutors and the defendants in high-profile election subversion cases. In the federal case involving millions of voters and four felony charges, the government must now prove that specific alleged actions were private rather than official. The scale of the impact extends to state-level proceedings, such as the criminal case in Georgia, where judges must now conduct similar reviews to determine which portions of the prosecution involve immune official acts.
The concrete change for the public was a delay in the resolution of criminal charges against a major presidential candidate. Voters did not see a trial verdict on the federal election interference charges before they cast their ballots in 2024. Furthermore, following the decision, Democratic politicians introduced constitutional amendments to address the ruling, and Trump eventually saw the federal case dismissed by Judge Chutkan following his 2024 election victory, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.