Fact check: Can a former president be granted immunity from prosecution by the DOJ?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, yes, a former president can be granted substantial immunity from prosecution by the DOJ following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024. The Court established a three-tiered immunity framework ^[1]:

• Absolute immunity for actions within the president's "core constitutional powers"
• Presumptive immunity for other official acts taken while in office
• No immunity for unofficial, private conduct

This ruling creates significant legal barriers to prosecuting former presidents, as it allows for pretrial immunity appeals and requires prosecutors to overcome substantial hurdles when pursuing cases involving official presidential actions ^[2]. The decision applies to all former presidents, not just specific individuals, meaning figures like Barack Obama would also benefit from these protections for actions taken during their presidency ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements revealed in the analyses:

• Civil liberties organizations strongly oppose this ruling - The ACLU characterized the decision as placing presidents "substantially above the law" and warned it creates a "dangerous precedent allowing presidents to potentially break laws with reduced accountability" ^[5].
• Constitutional law experts express serious concerns - UC Berkeley constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky warned the ruling could theoretically allow a president to "use powers like calling Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival with absolute immunity" ^[6].
• The ruling has immediate practical implications - The immunity framework could protect former presidents from prosecution for actions that might otherwise be considered criminal, such as "using the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes" ^[5].
• Bipartisan implications exist - While the case involved Trump, the immunity protections would apply to any former president, including those from different political parties, creating a precedent that transcends partisan lines ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual rather than containing misinformation. However, it lacks important nuance about the scope and limitations of presidential immunity. The question could be interpreted as seeking a simple yes/no answer when the reality is more complex - immunity is not absolute for all actions but depends on whether the conduct was official or unofficial in nature ^[1].

The question also doesn't acknowledge the controversial nature of this legal development, which has generated significant criticism from civil liberties advocates who argue it fundamentally alters the principle that no one is above the law ^{[5] [6]}.