How will the 2025 ruling affect ongoing and future criminal investigations of presidents?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s 2024–2025 rulings—most notably Trump v. United States—expanded presidential immunity for acts tied to official functions, a change legal analysts say gives presidents “vast new immunity” that will narrow what acts prosecutors can pursue while a president is in office [1]. Scholars and watchdogs warn that those decisions plus shifts in DOJ norms and Project 2025 proposals create a political environment in which investigations of sitting presidents and allied officials will be harder to open, sustain or complete without executive pushback [2] [1].
1. The new immunity landscape: what the Court actually did
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions narrowed the reach of criminal liability for actions the Court treated as within the “office” of the presidency, producing what the Brennan Center calls “vast new immunity” for acts committed while in office and changing the baseline for when prosecutors may charge a sitting or former president [1]. Lower-court fights over whether particular actions are “official” or “campaign” acts—already central in earlier litigation—now will take on heightened importance because the Court signaled a broader deference to presidential prerogative [3] [1].
2. Immediate effect on ongoing investigations
Ongoing federal and state criminal inquiries face two concrete impacts: prosecutors must more carefully frame alleged misconduct as non‑official or identify factual windows outside the “core” exercise of presidential functions; and courts will be asked to adjudicate immunity questions early, which can delay or foreclose prosecutions [3] [4]. The New York Times tracked how immunity arguments and venue choices have already affected high‑profile cases, including the Georgia and federal probes, showing that immunity rulings can meaningfully alter prosecutorial strategy and case viability [5] [3].
3. How prosecutors can and will adapt
Legal scholars and practitioners mapped out tactics for prosecutors: pursue subordinate actors whose conduct falls clearly outside presidential immunity; emphasize motive and personal aims rather than official purpose; and, where possible, frame alleged acts as private or campaign conduct rather than official acts [4]. Yale Law Journal and other analyses urge narrower, fact‑intensive charging decisions so claims of immunity must be resolved against a detailed record—an approach that keeps investigations alive even if some counts are later dismissed [4].
4. State prosecutions and the presidential pardon gap
States remain a crucial counterweight because state convictions are not subject to presidential pardons; prosecutors had viewed state venues as a backstop to federal immunity and pardon power [5]. But the same immunity reasoning from the high court could influence state courts when defendants argue their conduct was protected as official acts—so the state avenue is powerful but not unassailable [5] [3].
5. The political context: norms, DOJ independence, and Project 2025
Beyond doctrine, institutional norms will shape practical outcomes. The Brennan Center warns that Project 2025’s proposals and administration directives risk eroding DOJ independence and could convert immunity gains into tools for political retribution or to shield allies—altering whether investigations are opened or aggressively pursued [2] [6]. Reporters and observers document executive pressure campaigns and new units aimed at politically charged investigations, signaling a political realignment of prosecutorial priorities [7] [6].
6. The litigation risks and tactical delays
Expect more pretrial litigation as defendants seek immunity rulings early; courts’ willingness to adjudicate those claims can slow or stay prosecutions and create opportunities for political actors to influence timing relative to elections [8] [3]. Scholars note that delays—whether doctrinally justified or tactical—can have substantive consequences by postponing factfinding and jury review [4].
7. Competing viewpoints and limits of current reporting
Some legal commentators argue the Court’s rulings merely refine long‑standing immunity principles and do not make presidents above the law; others, including the Brennan Center, describe the effect as transformational and corrosive to accountability [1]. Available sources do not mention concrete examples of prosecutions that have been barred entirely solely by the new Supreme Court rubric—many reported effects are still unfolding in courts and departments (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for future investigations
Future investigations will require sharper factual framing, greater reliance on non‑official conduct or subordinate actors, and a realistic assessment of political constraints inside the DOJ. The intersection of expanded immunity doctrine [1], state prosecutorial routes [5], and proposals that could politicize the Justice Department [2] [6] means accountability will increasingly depend on strategic prosecutorial choices and the willingness of courts to press past categorical immunity shields [4].