Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which courts have ruled against presidential immunity for Donald Trump and in which cases?
Executive summary
The U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States (decided July 1, 2024) held that a president has absolute immunity for some “core” constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts — and it vacated and remanded lower-court rulings to apply that framework to specific allegations (6–3) [1] [2]. Lower courts since then have wrestled with which of Donald Trump’s alleged actions are “official” or “unofficial,” and commentators and advocacy groups say the ruling both narrowed some prosecutions (notably actions linked to DOJ use) and left many issues to further litigation [3] [4] [5].
1. The high court’s line-drawing: absolute, presumptive, and none
Chief Justice Roberts’s majority announced a three-tier approach: absolute immunity for acts within the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts — then vacated the D.C. Circuit judgment and sent the case back for fact-specific analysis [1] [2]. The Court specifically instructed lower courts to decide which of the charged acts fall into those categories, rather than resolving immunity across the board [1] [4].
2. What the Supreme Court said about particular allegations against Trump
Although the Court did not fully decide every charge, it said some specific alleged uses of the Department of Justice were immune from prosecution while remanding other alleged conduct — such as pressuring the Vice President, state officials, or private actors — to the district court for factual analysis and potential rebuttal of the presumptive immunity [6] [1] [2]. The Court’s opinion signaled that evidence tied to commandeering DOJ officials would likely be excluded from prosecution unless the lower court finds otherwise [1] [3].
3. How lower courts have responded and where rulings have gone against immunity
Available sources document that lower courts have been required to reexamine claims in light of the Supreme Court framework, and some appellate panels and trial judges have revisited earlier decisions — for example, remanding cases for reconsideration and, in at least some proceedings, finding that certain acts are not protected as official or were not covered by absolute immunity [6] [2]. The materials show courts have not uniformly extended full immunity to all of the conduct alleged in various indictments; instead, they must perform the fact-specific balancing the Supreme Court demanded [1] [2].
4. Examples raised by commentators and advocacy groups about rulings against immunity
Legal analysts and groups like the Brennan Center and ACLU framed the Supreme Court decision as limiting prosecutors’ options — for instance, directing prosecutors to drop allegations tied to Trump’s alleged commandeering of the DOJ and imposing a presumption that complicates other charges — but they also note that the decision left space for lower courts to reject immunity claims where acts are unofficial or the presumption is rebutted [3] [7]. News outlets and legal blogs report that subsequent litigation has produced mixed results: some district and appellate judges have pushed back against sweeping immunity claims and remanded specific issues for fact-finding [4] [2].
5. The practical effect: delayed trials and new appeals pathways
The Supreme Court’s framework has delayed trial proceedings while lower courts parse which allegations fit “official” acts and whether prosecutors can overcome presumptive immunity; that has also opened new avenues for appeals and for defense teams to seek vacatur or retrial based on excluded evidence [4] [8]. News reporting on follow-on appeals shows defense teams invoking the immunity decision to challenge convictions or trial evidence, and appellate courts have sent matters back to trial judges to reassess under the new immunity rubric [8] [9].
6. Disagreement among observers about consequences and intent
Conservative and libertarian commentators criticized the Court for inventing broad immunities; civil-libertarian organizations and many legal scholars warned the ruling could shield serious misuse of office, while others defended the decision as required by separation-of-powers reasoning — the sources reflect sharply divergent views about whether the decision prevents accountability or protects legitimate presidential functions [10] [3] [7]. The Court’s opinion itself leaves those disputes to be resolved case-by-case in lower courts [1] [2].
7. What reporting does not yet resolve
Available sources do not catalog a definitive list of every lower-court decision that has ruled the immunity claim against Trump fails on each specific charge; rather, they show the Supreme Court set standards and many lower courts have since applied them with mixed, fact-specific outcomes, producing ongoing litigation and appeals (not found in current reporting). Readers should expect more district and circuit opinions applying the framework to emerge as cases proceed [1] [2].
Bottom line: the Supreme Court curtailed some prosecutorial theories by creating a layered immunity test and remanding factual questions, and lower courts have in some instances rejected blanket immunity claims — but the precise set of courts and rulings that definitively “ruled against” Trump’s immunity on each charge remains a developing, fact‑dependent record as litigation continues [1] [2] [4].