On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, addressing criminal immunity for a former president. The majority held that former presidents have absolute immunity for conduct within their exclusive constitutional authority, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
The ruling required further analysis of which alleged acts in the federal election-interference prosecution were official or unofficial. The majority and dissenting justices sharply disagreed over the implications for presidential accountability.
The decision was not a determination that Trump was guilty or innocent of the underlying criminal allegations. It established a legal framework governing potential prosecution for presidential acts.
The Supreme Court's immunity opinion distinguished core constitutional acts, other official acts and unofficial conduct. Application to individual allegations requires further judicial analysis.
The Supreme Court's presidential-immunity decision distinguished official presidential acts from unofficial conduct and established a framework for evaluating criminal charges involving a former president. The ruling did not declare that every action by a president is immune, nor did it adjudicate the facts of every allegation in the underlying case.
Its practical effect depended on how lower courts classified particular conduct. That makes the categories and the remand important parts of the history. A careful account explains the legal rule the Court announced separately from the unresolved factual and procedural questions it left for later proceedings.