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.
How does the November 2025 decision change the ability to indict or prosecute a sitting president at the state and federal level?
Executive summary
The November 2025 Supreme Court decision and related litigation reshaped when and how prosecutors can use evidence tied to “official” presidential acts and reinforced longstanding limits on prosecuting a sitting president at the federal level; the Court held presidents have immunity for official acts but not for unofficial ones, and it constrained the use of official-act evidence in prosecutions [1] [2]. As a practical matter in 2024–2025, federal special counsel offices paused or narrowed cases (including Jack Smith’s), and the DOJ’s long-standing internal policy against indicting a sitting president continued to influence charging decisions [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Court actually decided: immunity for official acts, not for private acts
On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled that a president enjoys immunity for acts “considered official” but not for unofficial, private acts; the decision also limited prosecutors’ ability to rely on evidence of official acts even when charging conduct that is primarily private [2] [1]. Reporting and timelines tied later indictment revisions and dismissals directly to that doctrinal split and to the Court’s framing of “official” versus “unofficial” conduct [6] [7].
2. Federal prosecution of a sitting president: policy plus practice
Beyond the Court’s doctrinal line, the Department of Justice maintained a longstanding policy—articulated in Office of Legal Counsel memos and reiterated by special counsels—that the Justice Department should not indict a sitting president, a rule that shaped prosecutors’ choices in late 2024 and 2025 [8] [4]. Special Counsel Jack Smith withdrew or narrowed federal cases in part because of that policy and because the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling raised unresolved legal questions that could have required further Supreme Court review [4] [6].
3. How prosecutors responded: rewriting and pausing indictments
Federal prosecutors retooled charging documents to frame alleged misconduct as candidate or private conduct rather than official acts after the Supreme Court ruling; prosecutors also sought dismissals “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility of re‑filing after a president leaves office [6] [5]. Jack Smith’s team explicitly said the Supreme Court ruling and DOJ policy constrained their ability to proceed while the defendant occupied the White House [4] [5].
4. State prosecutions: still unsettled, but active
State cases proceeded on a different, less-settled path. State prosecutors continued or revived indictments in New York and Georgia even after the national immunity ruling, and state courts faced questions about whether a state prosecutor can try a sitting president and whether state judges must or can hear such cases [2] [9] [10]. Some state-level prosecutions were adjusted or appealed in light of federal immunity holdings and related procedural rulings [7] [10].
5. Practical consequences: evidence, pleading choices and timing
A direct effect of the Court’s approach was evidentiary and pleading work: prosecutors trimmed or reframed factual allegations to avoid relying on protected “official” acts, recasting transactions as private or candidate‑related where possible [6]. Timing matters: DOJ policy and statute‑of‑limitations concerns mean prosecutors often delay charges or reserve re‑indictment until a president leaves office [8] [5].
6. Competing views and political context
Legal specialists and prosecutors diverge. Some argue immunity for official acts is necessary to protect the presidency’s functioning; others say it creates a substantial enforcement gap for misconduct done under color of office [11] [2]. Reporting also documents political allegations that executive influence is being used to push prosecutions of political opponents—a dynamic critics say risks “weaponizing” the DOJ, while defenders argue prosecutions follow the evidence [12] [13].
7. Limits of the available reporting and remaining open questions
Available sources do not fully resolve whether state courts must accept trials of a sitting president or how lower courts will apply the Supreme Court’s official/unofficial test in novel factual settings—those questions remain litigated and fact‑dependent (not found in current reporting). The contours of “official” conduct and the interplay between DOJ policy and state prosecutors will shape whether charges can practically move forward against a sitting president in the near term [2] [4].
8. Bottom line for indictability at each level
Federal: doctrinal limits plus the DOJ’s policy meant federal prosecutors largely refrained from indicting a sitting president in 2024–2025; the Supreme Court ruling narrowed viable avenues by protecting official acts and evidence tied to them [4] [1]. State: prosecutions continued in some jurisdictions, but state-level ability to try a sitting president is legally unsettled and subject to separate procedural and constitutional fights [9] [2].