How have courts ruled so far on Trump’s claims of presidential immunity and on challenges to the special counsel appointment?

1. Supreme Court’s framework: absolute core immunity plus a rebuttable presumption

In a 6–3 decision the high court announced a three‑tiered rule: absolute immunity for acts within a president’s exclusive constitutional authorities, presumptive immunity for other official acts within the “outer perimeter” of responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial, private acts — and it remanded factual questions back to the trial court to decide which charged acts fit which category ^{[1] [2] [6]}. The Court expressly excused prosecution of conduct tied to using the Justice Department to produce alternate electors — a determination that narrowed the government’s case and will require lower courts to parse the rest of the indictment charge‑by‑charge ^{[7] [6]}.

2. Practical effect so far: delay, narrowing and heavy burdens on prosecutors

Practically, the ruling has delayed potential trials and forced prosecutors to meet a demanding evidentiary standard to rebut presumptive immunity; commentators and advocacy groups warn the standard is high and could “mire” prosecutions in protracted litigation ^{[8] [7]}. The Supreme Court’s decision did not categorically bar all prosecution, but it told lower courts to analyze each alleged act, a step that both narrows charges already deemed official and hands defense teams new litigation points that can slow or complicate trial timetables ^{[2] [9]}.

3. Dissenting views and warnings about presidential power

Dissenters and civil‑liberties groups portrayed the ruling as a sweeping enhancement of presidential power that risks placing future presidents “substantially above the law,” arguing that the Court’s blend of absolute and presumptive immunity could effectively insulate corrupt official conduct and invite future abuses ^{[7] [8] [10]}. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned the majority’s test may render the category of “unofficial” acts vanishingly small, an implicit critique echoed by legal observers who foresee long‑term consequences for accountability ^{[10] [8]}.

4. Lower‑court special counsel rulings: Cannon’s dismissal vs. prior uniform rulings

On Appointments Clause challenges to special‑counsel appointments, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his authority in appointing a special counsel for the Mar‑a‑Lago documents prosecution and dismissed the indictment, finding constitutional and appropriations concerns in the appointment and funding ^[3]. The Justice Department has appealed that dismissal, noting it diverges from the “uniform conclusion of all previous courts” that have considered the question and historically upheld the Attorney General’s authority to appoint special counsels under DOJ regulations ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Broader litigation landscape and institutional stakes

Scholars and practitioners note the issue is not new: Appointments Clause attacks to special counsel authority have been litigated repeatedly and generally rejected, but the Cannon opinion represents a potential inflection point if higher courts affirm it — a result that could force rethinking of DOJ regulations and the remedies for alleged ultra vires prosecutions ^{[5] [11]}. Courts weighing these challenges must balance separation‑of‑powers principles, statutory text, and long practice; contemporaneous commentary frames some challenges as strategic litigation tactics that both seek dismissal and create political narratives favorable to the defendant ^{[12] [13]}.

6. What courts haven’t decided and where appeals will land

The Supreme Court left many factual immunity determinations to the trial court and did not bless blanket immunity for all charged conduct, meaning the legal fight will continue below and on appeal as prosecutors try to rebut presumptive immunity and as DOJ presses appeals of Cannon’s special‑counsel ruling ^{[2] [4]}. Reporting does not establish how appellate courts will ultimately reconcile the immunity framework with Appointments Clause challenges, so the long arc of these disputes — and their institutional consequences — remains unresolved in the record provided ^{[2] [4]}.