Fact check: Can a former US president be granted immunity from prosecution?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, a former US president can be granted immunity from prosecution, as established by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024. The Court created a tiered immunity framework for former presidents:

• Absolute immunity for actions within the president's exclusive constitutional authority, including attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct election results ^{[1] [2]}
• Presumptive immunity for other official acts performed during their tenure in office ^[1]
• No immunity for unofficial or private acts

This ruling specifically emerged from cases involving former President Donald Trump, but the precedent applies to all former presidents, including potential future prosecutions of former President Barack Obama ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the significant controversy and opposition surrounding this immunity doctrine:

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues this decision "substantially undermines the ability to hold elected officials accountable and threatens longstanding principles undergirding democracy" by placing presidents above the law ^{[2] [4]}
• The Brennan Center for Justice contends the ruling "undermines democracy and the rule of law" by potentially shielding presidents from prosecution for attempting to overthrow elections ^[4]
• Legal experts warn this creates a "dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when using their formal powers," even when undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes ^[2]

Who benefits from this immunity framework:

• Former presidents like Trump and Obama gain protection from criminal prosecution for official acts
• Current and future presidents receive expanded legal protections for their official conduct
• Political allies of presidents may benefit from reduced accountability for executive branch actions

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, containing no apparent misinformation or bias. However, it lacks important context about:

• The recent and controversial nature of this immunity doctrine - it was only established in July 2024
• The significant legal and democratic concerns raised by civil liberties organizations and legal scholars
• The scope limitations - immunity only applies to official acts, not private conduct
• The ongoing debate about whether this ruling undermines democratic accountability and the principle that no one is above the law

The question could be interpreted as seeking a simple yes/no answer when the reality involves complex legal distinctions and substantial constitutional controversy.