Can a former president be prosecuted for acts committed while in office?

1. The legal turning point: what the high court decided

In Trump v. United States the Supreme Court announced a three-part framework: presidents have absolute immunity for actions within the “exclusive sphere” of their constitutional authority, presumptive but not absolute immunity for other official acts (subject to a government showing that prosecution would not intrude on executive functions), and no immunity for unofficial acts — a ruling that therefore allows prosecution of some former-presidential conduct but protects certain core executive functions ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

2. What “official” versus “unofficial” means in practice — the prosecutor’s puzzle

Courts and commentators stress the line-drawing problem: actions that are plainly personal (e.g., private business misconduct) have long been treated as indictable after leaving office, while acts that involve commanding executive agencies, making core constitutional decisions, or directing prosecutorial policy may be insulated by absolute or presumptive immunity — and prosecutors must now assess whether bringing charges would intrude on the presidency’s independence or exceed a permissible prosecution of non‑executive wrongdoing ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

3. Precedent, history and competing visions of accountability

Some scholars point to the Founders’ design that separated impeachment from criminal prosecution and argue for strong protections to avoid partisan prosecutions that could disable the presidency, a view stressing congressional impeachment as the primary check ^[6], while other legal commentators and the Constitution Annotated emphasize that the Constitution does not grant former officials blanket immunity and that accountability through courts is consistent with the Framers’ refusal to create personal immunities after office ^{[4] [2]}.

4. How lower courts have applied the rule — recent litigation as a test case

Federal appellate rulings in high‑profile prosecutions have wrestled with these principles: one D.C. Circuit panel ruled that a former president was not immune from prosecution for alleged violations of generally applicable criminal laws that aimed to neutralize election checks (a position later narrowed by the Supreme Court’s framework), illustrating that lower courts may differ on fact patterns and that immunity questions can pause trials while appellate courts resolve them ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Practical and political constraints beyond legal doctrine

Even where courts permit prosecution, prosecutors exercise discretion; the Department of Justice has historically considered separation‑of‑powers and institutional costs when deciding whether to indict high officeholders, and critics warn that prosecutions of former presidents risk fueling claims of political weaponization while supporters argue that failing to prosecute would place the presidency above the law ^{[4] [7] [8]}.

6. What this means going forward — the rule and its limits

The settled takeaway is narrow and uncomfortable: former presidents are not categorically immune, but many acts taken in an official capacity may be shielded unless prosecutors and courts can show that criminal enforcement would not intrude on executive authority; because the line between “official” and “unofficial” is fact‑specific and contested, each case will be litigated rather than resolved by an across‑the‑board rule, producing continuing legal and political controversy ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

7. Unresolved questions and institutional remedies

Scholars and practitioners propose structural responses — clear statutory standards, pre‑indictment consultation panels, or congressional oversight mechanisms — to reduce partisan perceptions, but none of those reforms is settled law, and courts remain the immediate arbiters of how immunity doctrine will be applied in concrete prosecutions of former presidents ^{[6] [7]}.