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 justices wrote the majority and dissenting opinions in the November 2025 presidential immunity case, and what were their key arguments?
Executive summary
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6–3 majority opinion holding that a President has absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for other official acts, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissented—Sotomayor and Jackson authored sharp dissents warning the ruling shields presidents from criminal accountability [1] [2] [3]. The majority said immunity protects the presidency and the separation of powers; the dissents said the decision makes a president “a king above the law” and will reshape the institution [4] [5].
1. Roberts’s majority: shielding core powers to protect the presidency
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a six-justice majority, framed the decision as a functional protection of Article II authority: absolute immunity covers the President’s “core constitutional powers,” while a presumption of immunity attaches to other official acts unless the government can rebut it; the Court remanded to lower courts to sort which alleged acts are official versus private [6] [2]. Roberts emphasized separation-of-powers consequences and warned against short-term fixes tied to a particular defendant or political moment, arguing the rule is needed so a President can “deal fearlessly and impartially” with duties without fear of successor-driven prosecutions [7] [4].
2. Who joined the majority and key practical effects the opinion announced
Roberts’s opinion united six conservative-leaning justices and carved out categorical protection for some presidential interactions—most notably, the opinion said supervision of the Justice Department and other core executive acts would be absolved from criminal prosecution as “core” acts, and it limited the use of evidence tied to those official acts in prosecutions, creating significant practical obstacles for charging a former president [3] [8]. The majority also described a three-part approach (no immunity for unofficial acts; absolute immunity for core powers; presumptive immunity for acts at the outer perimeter) that will require case-by-case lower-court litigation [6].
3. Sotomayor and Jackson: dissents warning of a “king above the law”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the principal dissent, saying the Court’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and risks permitting criminal conduct by presidents; she accused the majority of inventing immunity without meaningful textual or precedential support and warned the decision could leave presidents effectively above the law [2] [9]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a separate dissent agreeing that the ruling breaks “new and dangerous ground,” contending it empowers the judiciary as a gatekeeper to accountability and weakens Congress’s role [1] [3].
4. Amy Coney Barrett’s narrower concurrence and the evidentiary rule dispute
Justice Amy Coney Barrett split the conservative bloc: she joined most of the majority’s conclusions but wrote separately to endorse a two-step, case-oriented approach for lower courts to determine whether acts are official and thus immune; she also expressed skepticism about forbidding evidence of official acts categorically, arguing ordinary evidence rules could handle prejudicial risk on a case-by-case basis [10] [1]. That internal departure underscores disagreement within the majority about how broad procedural protections should be.
5. Competing interpretations and implications for prosecutions and politics
Advocates and critics offer starkly different readings: proponents and some conservative legal scholars say the ruling preserves the presidency from politicized prosecutions and follows functional separation-of-powers logic [7] [6]; civil liberties groups and the dissenters argue the decision effectively frees presidents to commit crimes under the cover of official acts and will complicate or foreclose prosecutions in politically fraught cases [8] [11]. Analysts warn the standards the Court announced are vague and will spawn years of litigation to classify contested conduct as official or private [3] [6].
6. What the sources do not settle and next legal steps
Available sources show the Supreme Court remanded factual questions to lower courts and declined to decide immunity for every contested allegation in the indictment, so the ultimate application of Roberts’s framework to specific counts remains unresolved and will be litigated [12] [6]. The reporting does not provide a definitive catalog of which individual actions will be ruled official or private in follow-on proceedings—those determinations are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Limitations and note on perspective: reporting across legal journals, advocacy groups, and news outlets consistently cites Roberts’s majority and the three-justice dissent, but they disagree sharply on the ruling’s long-term constitutional and political consequences; readers should expect substantial lower-court development and continued scholarly debate [4] [8] [11].