How does the December 2025 Supreme Court decision affect criminal prosecutions of former presidents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision in Trump v. United States holds that former presidents have absolute immunity for "core" constitutional functions and presumptive immunity for other official acts, while denying immunity for purely private acts — a framework that substantially narrows when and how former presidents can be criminally prosecuted [1] [2]. Legal experts and critics say the ruling will make prosecutions of ex‑presidents far more difficult in practice, because some alleged official conduct and even related evidence may be barred from trial [3] [4].
1. What the Court actually held: a three‑part immunity framework
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion created a tiered approach: absolute immunity for acts within a president’s "exclusive" constitutional authority, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for private conduct; the Court emphasized protecting executive decision‑making from the chilling effect of criminal exposure [1] [2] [5]. The Court also drew lines about evidence: records or testimony tied to immune official acts may be excluded from criminal trials, a point that practitioners flagged as consequential [3].
2. Immediate practical effect on pending prosecutions
The ruling directly affected the special‑counsel case that reached the Court and has been raised in state and federal proceedings tied to the 2020 election; courts must now test whether charged conduct was an immune official act or a private act, a determination that can preclude counts or evidence and delay trials [1] [6]. PBS and legal scholars warned that excluding evidence about official acts could “effectively make criminal prosecutions of former presidents all but impossible,” because core facts may be removed from juries’ view [3].
3. Why prosecutors and defense lawyers will litigate immunity first
Because the Court put presumptive immunity at the center, prosecutors will face early, potentially dispositive motions to show that alleged conduct falls outside protected official functions or that immunity does not apply in the particular factual context; conversely, defense teams can seek immediate dismissal or evidentiary exclusion by arguing acts were official [1] [2]. The decision shifts a major part of accountability fights from trial strategies into pretrial constitutional litigation, which the Court’s guidance invites [6] [7].
4. Competing legal and democratic critiques
Critics — including civil‑liberties groups and center‑left legal centers — call the opinion sweeping and dangerous, arguing it places presidents "substantially above the law" and creates high barriers to accountability for executive misconduct [8] [4]. Supporters of the ruling and the majority frame it as necessary to preserve an executive that can act boldly without fear of rear‑guard prosecutions by successors, a rationale the Court used to justify broad immunity for core functions [5] [2].
5. Open questions left by the Court and the role of other institutions
The decision leaves many disputes unresolved: how to categorize borderline acts that mix official and personal motives, whether state prosecutions are constrained in the same way, and how impeachment and congressional tools interact with judicial immunity — matters the Court did not fully settle and that scholars warn will keep courts and Congress engaged [1] [9] [7]. The Harvard Law Review noted the opinion reduces Congress’s centrality in these questions and makes courts the primary gatekeepers of presidential accountability [7].
6. What this means for future presidential behavior and DOJ practice
Observers report that the ruling has already affected executive conduct and Justice Department interactions by broadening presidential authority over DOJ decisions in the public conversation; NPR and other outlets have linked the decision to later episodes in which presidential direction of DOJ activity drew scrutiny and new prosecutorial actions [10]. The Brennan Center and other critics argue this creates incentives for politicized uses of executive power and could enable “revenge” prosecutions or shielding from them, depending on who controls the office [4] [11].
7. How cases will proceed from here: litigation, evidence fights, and appeals
Expect prolonged pretrial litigation about whether charged acts are immune and which pieces of evidence are admissible; even when charges survive, juries may be deprived of context courts deem “official,” complicating prosecutions [3] [1]. If lower courts split on these questions, the Supreme Court may be asked again to refine boundaries between private crime and protected official act, keeping these disputes in the judiciary rather than Congress [6] [7].
Limitations: available sources do not mention specific post‑2025 trial outcomes tied conclusively to the immunity ruling; many practical effects remain speculative and will depend on how lower courts apply the Court’s framework (not found in current reporting).