What was the full name and citation of the November 2025 presidential immunity decision?

1. The name and canonical citation journalists use

Legal and mainstream press identify the case as Trump v. United States, arising as docket No. 23‑939 and published as the Court’s slip opinion for the October Term, 2023 — the formal Supreme Court opinion is available as the slip opinion PDF for No. 23‑939 ^{[2] [1]}. Secondary sources (SCOTUSblog, PBS, Congressional Research Service) summarize the holding and date: the Court’s majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts was issued July 1, 2024 (p3_s3; ^[11]; ^[12] is a database entry that points to the docket) and the slip opinion text is the authoritative citation in press reporting ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Why November 2025 coverage keeps referring back to that ruling

News in November 2025 concerns how lower courts and litigants are applying Trump v. United States: appellate panels and district courts have been assessing whether specific charges or evidence count as “official acts” immune from prosecution and whether removal or other remedies follow from the Supreme Court framework ^{[4] [3]}. For example, a 2nd Circuit order in late 2025 directed closer scrutiny of how the Supreme Court’s immunity framework affects the New York falsified‑business‑records case ^[4], and reporting notes immunity issues influencing appeals and civil suits ^{[3] [5]}.

3. What the Trump v. United States decision actually held

The Court’s 6–3 majority concluded that a former president is entitled to absolute criminal immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other “official acts,” and no immunity for unofficial acts; it vacated and remanded the underlying indictment for lower courts to parse which allegations involve official versus unofficial conduct ^{[1] [6]}. The opinion relies on precedents such as Nixon v. Fitzgerald (civil‑immunity precedent) and frames immunity as necessary to protect executive functioning ^{[7] [6]}.

4. How advocates and critics frame the decision

Civil‑liberties groups (e.g., ACLU) and many commentators call the ruling a sweeping expansion that risks placing presidents above the law and creating a “blank check” for criminal acts carried as official duties ^{[8] [9]}. Academic and conservative commentators—like Robert Delahunty and John Yoo—argue the ruling follows separation‑of‑powers logic and existing official‑immunity precedents and defends executive independence ^[7]. Both perspectives appear repeatedly in the sources; the Court’s opinion itself emphasized institutional concerns while dissenters warned of democratic and legal harms ^{[1] [10]}.

5. Practical aftereffects courts are wrestling with

Lower courts are now obligated to determine charge‑by‑charge whether alleged conduct was an “official act” and whether immunity applies; that work has produced repeated remands, appeals, and collateral litigation over removal, admissibility of evidence, and civil remedies ^{[6] [4]}. Reporters note the immunity framework has affected unrelated state civil and criminal proceedings (e.g., attempts to move state prosecutions to federal court or to invoke immunity in defamation and damages appeals) ^{[5] [3]}.

6. Limitations and what the available sources do not show

Available sources do not mention any distinct Supreme Court “November 2025 presidential immunity decision”; instead, November 2025 reporting and legal analysis focus on downstream effects and lower‑court rulings applying the July 2024 Trump v. United States opinion ^{[4] [3]}. The slip opinion (No. 23‑939) remains the central primary text cited by press, scholars, and litigants ^{[2] [1]}.

If you want, I can (a) pull the exact slip‑opinion PDF text and quote the opening paragraph/citation, (b) compile a short list of key passages in the majority and dissents for direct citation, or (c) summarize specific November 2025 lower‑court decisions that applied the immunity framework (all using only the sources you provide).